Debates of Jan. 29th, 2003

Iraq

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, tonight we are debating an important subject, the situation in Iraq. We are debating about war and peace, about war or peace.

For weeks now, people have been asking me about this. They are worried and ask me if Canada will go to war and if there will be a war. It is palpable, you can feel it. As soon as we meet people, they ask us this question. This question has become a daily concern.

I have seen that Quebeckers and Canadians do not want a war. I know that this does not mean that Quebeckers and Canadians have any sympathy for Saddam Hussein. They have no sympathy for him, no more than they did in the 1970s and 1980s when he was an ally of the United States.

Quebeckers and Canadians love freedom. This debate is important, as I said, but it is not enough. It would only be meaningful if there were a vote, if this House were to vote to express the will of Quebeckers and Canadians.

This debate is not just about whether or not there should be military intervention. This debate is about the much broader issue of how to intervene in a crisis. That is the essential issue. The issue of whether or not there should be military intervention is one that flows from it.

The 20th century was a century of international and regional conflicts. After World War I, we had the League of Nations, which failed shortly before World War II. The UN came into existence after the second world war. Since then, several international tribunals have been created, including, most recently, the International Criminal Court, in which, unfortunately, the United States has refused to participate. I mention this because it is important.

Ware and peace, men and women said after the horrors of World War II, must, from then on, be the responsibility of the United Nations and not of one country seeking to dominate another country or the world.

Therefore, two things must be avoided: militarism at all costs, such as I heard yesterday during George Bush's address, and also pacifism at all costs.

We should have intervened in Rwanda. We did not. It was a mistake not to have intervened in Rwanda. That is why I am saying that it is not a question of war or peace, but about when to intervene in a situation.

Sometimes, war is necessary when human lives are at stake. That was the case in Rwanda. We did not act and that was a mistake. Is this the case now? It is not the case at this time.

To state as George Bush did that we will go, no matter what the evidence indicates, is a mistake. To state as other countries did that we will not go, no matter what the evidence indicates, is also a mistake. Both are equally wrong. That is not what we should do.

What should we do now? First, we must act and act only under the authority of the United Nations. Resolution 1441, naturally, talks about the serious consequences for Iraq if Saddam Hussein does not act. But there is a final paragraph, paragraph 14, which says,

The Security Council decides to remain seized of the matter.

What does this mean? What should the Prime Minister understand from reading the final paragraph of Resolution 1441? He should understand that, by a second resolution or within the same resolution, the United Nations, through its Security Council, must assess the evidence and make a decision.

Without that decision, Canada ought not to intervene without the go ahead of the Security Council. That ought to be clear to the Prime Minister as well as to all parliamentarians here in this House.

Resolution 1441 requires us to maintain all demands on Iraq. This is self-evident and I believe there is unanimity on it here. It also encourages us to reject any intervention without Security Council approval, and not to do as George Bush said yesterday, “If the Security Council does not agree, we will go anyway”. That we cannot do.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are saying this evening that this is hypothetical, but this is not the case. If George Bush takes the trouble to tell us this, it is because he is aware that a veto power might be exercised, that the Security Council might not give its consent, that the U.S. President is trying to get allies on his side without that consent.

In this connection, it is cowardice on Canada's part not to shoulder its responsibilities by saying, “if the Security Council is not going, than neither are we”. That is what Canadians and Quebeckers want to hear. And what they are not hearing.

A second condition comes to mind: we need to hold a vote here in the House. I heard the Prime Minister telling us that the environment is sufficiently important to warrant a vote here in the House and that it is a vote of confidence, that political party financing is sufficiently important for a vote of confidence. I would point out to him that war is just as important and also constitutes a vote of confidence.

I would tell the member for LaSalle—Émard, with all his talk about the democratic deficit, that not voting on a matter as serious as war constitutes a serious democratic deficit. I would tell the Prime Minister, who is holding out the threat of an election to those of his MPs who are not in agreement with him, to call an election on the war issue, and we will just see. We will let the people speak with their vote.

We need to vote here in the House. If the Security Council says, “Yes, we must go into Iraq”, we will not go until we ourselves have assessed the Security Council's evidence. That is what sovereignty is all about. This Quebec sovereignist is telling you this, federal government representatives: stand tall, be as determined to ensure the sovereignty of Canada as we are to ensure the sovereignty of Quebec, and I will be right with you on this one.

A third condition is that under no circumstances must Canada act hypocritically and do indirectly what it would refrain from doing directly. We should not relieve the U.S. in Afghanistan so they can send more troops to Iraq. Holding the robber's pocket open to allow him to drop money into it is still robbing. We cannot collaborate in this way, which some might like, but which might not sit well with others.

I address my comments to the Prime Minister. I, as a sovereignist, recognize that Mr. Pearson, Mr. Trudeau, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, whom I cannot name here, and Mr. Mulroney were up to the task. They knew how to make decisions, regardless of how hard other countries pushed. The current Prime Minister is not up to this task. He is ducking his responsibilities.

Obviously, we must maintain ties with the United States. They are our friends. However, that does not make us their servant or their mouthpiece. There are times when it is right to tell one's friends, “you are wrong”.

A large part of the American population does not agree with its government. And regardless of whether or not they agree, what is our role? It is to decide for ourselves and by ourselves. It is called democracy and it is sadly lacking in this debate.

To close, I would like to remind this government that it must not confuse United Nations and United States. They are two different things. This country, Canada, and the aspiring country, Quebec, must behave in way that respects everyone. We must take a stand, and work for peace, rather than kowtowing and making decisions without any proof.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. Did he hear what I said? Did he listen to my speech when I said that we will decide in the interest of Canada, as a completely sovereign nation? We will decide whether war is necessary or not. It is our decision. It is the government of this country that will decide.

That is what he is calling on us to do. That is the responsibility he is asking us to take. We will take this responsibility. We will act with this in mind. We must look at what is happening and act in such a way as to ensure disarmament in Iraq, world peace and the success of the UN, which is the cornerstone of the world's security system. The policy of our government is the sovereignty of Canada and we will respect it.

I totally reject the suggestion by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois who says that the government is not acting in a sovereign manner and in the interests of Canadians.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I heard what the minister said, but I also heard what he did not say.

He did not say that Canada would never go without the approval of the Security Council. He did not say what he would tell Secretary of State Powell tomorrow about President Bush's assertion that, if the Security Council did not give the okay, Americans would go anyway and that they would go with a coalition of friends.

He should have said “We will not be among those friends. We will stand by the Security Council. We will be with the United Nations and we hope the United States will be there too, but we will not be with the United States if the United Nations is not. That is what he should have said, but that is not what I heard.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chairman, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois raised the issue of sovereignty several times. Canada's sovereignty is very important to me. Nothing is more important.

Could he tell us, which, in his opinion, is more important: the sovereignty of the UN or that of Canada?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, let us begin with Quebec.

What I said is that regardless of the decision made by the Security Council, we will have to make a decision here. But this decision, in my opinion, must have the support of the UN. It would create all kinds of trouble in a part of the world that is already troubled enough, the Middle East. This is what we need to realize. Until now, no proof has been given, absolutely no proof.

Of course, there was last night's moralizing address that mentioned torture and so on. That is true, it is horrible and unacceptable, but that existed when Hussein was an ally of the U.S. That existed under Pinochet, who was also an American ally. So let us not talk about morality. I think the UN needs to play a central role. As a sovereign country, we need to intervene in a sovereign manner and say that for us, we will act with the United Nations, which is able to judge if the evidence is conclusive or not. We are judging this evidence as well. We must therefore maintain our sovereignty in the United Nations.

[An hon. member]

We need a vote.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

With a vote, of course.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, the leader of the Bloc spoke eloquently and with a lot of passion. I very much appreciated his comments. I have a comment to which I would like a reply.

He spoke about our role as a nation, as a confederation. Part of what is wrong with our role is our lack of respect in the international forum. Canada no longer has the same prime ministers and the same ministers of the past. We have become trivialized and marginalized. We are begging for bombs and communications equipment for our planes in Kosovo. We have a government that would dare to think about going to war without even going to Parliament. I would like a reply.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I trust that Canada—and one day Quebec as well—will play a more significant role on the international scene. Canada has, moreover, done so before. Mr. Pearson played a decisive role in the history of the development of the United Nations. I have already spoken of the important roles played by Messrs. Trudeau, Clark and Mulroney. I remember the boycott of South Africa. Despite the U.S. disapproval, Mulroney stood firm, and more power to him for it.

That said, how should we fulfil this role? In my opinion, we have absolutely nothing to gain by playing policemen. We do not have the means, anyway. The role of Canada ought, moreover, to be more focussed on peacekeeping missions, in order to retain the respected image it has always had, and should keep, so that in any region of the world where there are external or internal conflicts between peoples, we may be able to step in and try to reconcile them. That is the type of reflection we should be having.

Rather than buying nuclear submarines, it might perhaps be better to give some thought to developing means of intervening strategically and tactically to strengthen world peace.

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

Mr. Chairman, the member made reference to the international criminal court. Saddam Hussein has killed over 220,000 Kurds. He ordered the killing of 60,000 Shiites. He is responsible for the deaths of his own constituents, including women, children, the elderly, and he has routinely ordered children in his country tortured.

My question is, does the member believe that Saddam Hussein should be charged under war crimes and if so, how should he be apprehended?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, Saddam Hussein could have charges brought against him in an international court, but certainly not by the Americans who are not members. We have seen Milosevic finally get his comeuppance, after numerous interventions, and Pinochet very nearly did, but for the protection of Mrs. Thatcher, shamefully. There are war criminals and I hope that Saddam Hussein will be one of those who will have to come before an international criminal court.

As well, there would be the CIA agents who engineered the overthrow of Salvador Allende and supported Pinochet. There would be the Marcos of the world, with their U.S. backing. If Saddam Hussein is a war criminal today, as an enemy of the United States, he was just as much one when he was their ally.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. First, I want to congratulate the hon. member on his speech. We must never forget that during the gas attacks on the Kurds of Halabja in 1988, the United States remained silent and Canada remained silent.

My question for the hon. member and leader of the Bloc Quebecois will be brief. If there was ever a possibility of military strikes, would the hon. leader agree that these military strikes and attacks should not only be approved by a United Nations resolution but should also respect the fundamental principles of international law?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I believe so. If, unfortunately, we had to resort to military action—which was the question—it should be limited to military targets. It is totally criminal to target, as is done in certain areas of the world, infrastructure, schools and parliaments. We see this. This is unacceptable, totally unacceptable. This should be under the authority of the United Nations and not under the authority of one country that decides for the United Nations.

[An hon. member]

It should be under international law.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

International law and the United Nations go hand in hand.

However, there is the issue of pre-emptive strikes. I know that this is the issue raised by international law. International law is evolving and so it should. If there had been pre-emptive strikes on Hitler, from 1933 to 1936, before Munich in 1937, before the Sudetenland crisis, before the Anschluss, before the invasion of Poland in 1939, this would have been good for all humankind, even if international law did not allow it. That said, we still need evidence. We had sufficient evidence against Adolf Hitler. The pacifists were wrong not to act. Many were not able to look back after 1945 because they were gone. We still need evidence and, I repeat, right now, there is no such evidence.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that this evening's debate on the Iraqi crisis must address four critical questions.

First, will the U.S. and the international community give the weapon's inspectors the time they need to do their job of identifying the existence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and ridding Iraq and the world of any such weapons?

It is not just a question of time. Nor is it just a question of whether Iraq will fully cooperate. It is also a question of whether the United States will fully cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors.

On Monday, Hans Blix clearly indicated that he had not received enough cooperation from Iraq. We already knew that. On Tuesday, after George Bush's speech, he was also clear. He confirmed that the United States had not cooperated fully either.

Let us go back for a moment to November 18 when the weapons inspectors began their chores. They made it absolutely clear that they desperately needed the full cooperation of every member of the international community. They pleaded with nations that had any evidence whatsoever bearing on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to bring forward their evidence.

What have we heard instead from the United States? Fearmongering, warmongering, and constant undermining of confidence in the job that the weapons inspectors were doing, and dangling all the time, every single day, the notion that there indeed are material breaches, but they are not bringing forward the evidence.

The second question that we must address in this debate is, will Canada finally abandon its increasingly embarrassing and confusing position on where precisely it stands on participation in any Iraqi war?

Most days what we hear from the defence minister is, “Yes, Mr. Bush, Canada will obey”. On alternate days, what do we hear from the foreign affairs minister, “Well, not today, Mr. Bush; not today anyway”.

And the Prime Minister's position? Who can imagine, who can figure out, who can ferret out what the position of the Prime Minister is on this question. It seems to depend on what hour of which day. It is as if the Prime Minister is plucking petals from a daisy, “Yes, Mr. Bush; no, Mr. Bush; Oui, M. Bush; non, M. Bush”. What a frightening basis for an independent, coherent foreign policy.

This is an absolutely unacceptable foreign policy for a nation of builders that is proud of its history in peacekeeping and diplomacy.

The third question is, if weapons inspectors report to the UN Security Council on February 15 that Iraq is continuing to block their work and it is absolutely clear that they have been blocking, that they have been frustrating the work, and further direction from the United Nations is required, will Canada search, indeed escalate its search, for creative diplomatic alternatives to war? Because there are indeed alternatives to war.

Finally, resolution 1441 does not give a mandate to the U.S., or any coalition of so-called “the willing”, to launch a military attack on Iraq.

If the second UN resolution sanctions military intervention in Iraq, will the government commit unequivocally tonight to allow a full further debate and a vote in the House of Commons before any decision is reached to send Canadian men and women into combat?

Canada faces a critical choice. It can be a resolute partner in a growing coalition, committed to building conditions for peace, building momentum for peace, or we can squander our proud tradition as a peace seeker and a peacekeeper and cave to the U.S. pressures to fall into line.

Canadians and the international community are clear. They are on the side of the UN inspectors being permitted to do their job.

The weapons inspectors must have support in order to accomplish their work.

If UNMOVIC is unsuccessful in dismantling any weapons of mass destruction that are detected, Canada should be in the forefront of crafting and implementing UN driven rules and protocols to ensure that Iraq does get rid of them and is prohibited from producing more.

On the eve of our Christmas recess a panel of Middle East experts, the Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee and the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton, recommended clear, practical alternatives to war in Iraq. They strongly urged that Canada fully support:

--a rigorous and effective disarmament regime based on unfettered inspections, targeted “smart sanctions” and futuremonitoring and verification... work in partnership with the many other UN Member States both inside and outside the Security Council who [share that objective].

No country on earth is better positioned and bears heavier responsibility than Canada to say to our closest neighbours in no uncertain terms, “Stop the war drums and start the dialogue”. Canada must regain its voice for peace. Canadians want their government to be a force for peace. On January 18 Canadians took to the streets in frigid temperatures all over the country to say “no” to war in Iraq. I am proud that the NDP last weekend at our convention endorsed that call for peace.

Let us in this chamber tonight, through our government, echo those sentiments and in the days and weeks ahead do so, not just in words but in deeds, in partnership with the international community that overwhelmingly share Canadians' passion for a peaceful, lasting resolution to the Iraqi crisis.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for her presentation. My question to the hon. member and also the members of her party has to do with our military.

The NDP has an excellent representative on our defence committee. He speaks out extremely well. If there were a war in Iraq, what kind of a role does the hon. member see our military could play when we are about 35,000 less men and women in uniform than what we need, when all the Sea Kings we have should be grounded and when we have used submarines which we cannot use?

One of my colleagues from Nova Scotia spoke to the engineer from London, England. The engineer also spoke to me about the fact the government had to bring him here to try to fix the used submarines because we did not know how to fix them. He did not think we could ever use them. What will we do with our men and women in uniform? How will we give them the pride and dignity they want, with the situation in our military today--

[The Deputy Chairman]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but she is using up a lot of time for a reply.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the question, I have already indicated that my party has spoken loud and clear in saying that we do not think Canada's military men and women should be sent into military combat in Iraq.

There are several reasons for that, but let me state two. One is that our military men and women are already overstretched. We know that they are overcommitted and I think the member is one of those who has said so.

More important, Canada should be in the forefront of those who are saying there are alternatives to war and that we will be part of that coalition of nations who will work toward those alternatives because the fact of the matter is it is not self-evident. It is not guaranteed that some kind of attack in Iraq would provide any kind of a solution to any amassing of weapons of mass destruction that could be taking place in Iraq.

Let us turn our minds to what kinds of solutions there are to once and for all rid not just Iraq but every nation in the world of the weapons of mass destruction that threaten to destroy the planet.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I just listened to the response from the hon. member. I have a question about what she just said.

I think that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, have tried to avoid extremes. We have never said that we should absolutely and immediately go with the Americans and we have never said we would never go.

In human history, mistakes have been made. I am thinking, among other things, about the negotiation that Chamberlain attempted with Hitler. The latter was never satisfied.

There comes a time when the international community—and that may be the case with the UN—will say “We have evidence. He does not want to disarm. Resolution 1441 has been passed. Now we are going to pass a resolution to disarm Saddam Hussein”.

I wonder if the hon. member would go so far as to say that even if the Security Council passed a resolution to take action that Canada should not join the international community in an operation to disarm Saddam Hussein after a second UN resolution.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chairman, let me repeat again what I have said, what my colleagues have said and what our new leader who has spoken proudly and loudly on this issue has said.

First, we are in complete agreement that Saddam Hussein and Iraq must be fully disarmed. If there are weapons of mass destruction, we must rid Iraq and the world of those weapons of mass destruction. However we have deal with these issues within the context of international law. One thing that is truly worrisome about the sabre-rattling and the warmongering of U.S. is that it has taken it upon itself to talk about pre-emptive strikes absolutely in defiance of international law. It has talked about taking it upon itself to bring about a regime change.

Let me be very clear that Saddam Hussein is a demonic dictator. Saddam Hussein is somebody who none of us would be prepared to put into public office or do anything to keep him there. However once the United States or any other nation, or any coalition of nations, decides to take it upon itself to engage in pre-emptive strikes and take it upon itself to bring about through military means regime changes, then God help the future of the world as it relates to trying to establish some kind of lasting peace and stability for future generations.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I was following my colleague's comments very carefully. I really admire her stand on the United Nations.

I would like to ask her a question about resolution 1441 which was passed unanimously. We say that we have to follow the resolution 1441 process to the very end. If there is a need for a second resolution in the future, this month or next month, and the resolution is again unanimously passed, 15 to 0, would the member stand up and oppose the UN resolution?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chairman, that is a very fair question and let me address it. We have made it very clear that a second resolution would be needed before there would be any contemplation of any kind of military attack in Iraq. However, should there be such a resolution, this will not be a resolution that requires all the nations of the world to participate in a war in Iraq. Presumably it would be the mandating for the possible military intervention.

Then it is up to the individual sovereign nations that consider the mandate, which would have been given under the scenario presented by the member, to decide. Will we be among the nations to participate in such a military aggression or will we say that our role is to continue relentlessly in the pursuit of peaceful alternatives? Our role, and we have made this choice before, is to be involved and engaged in the humanitarian work.

I think Canadians have said loud and clear, as they marched through the streets of the country: drop the sanctions, do not drop the bombs. That is more likely to begin to produce real progress in the direction of not only relieving the suffering of the Iraqi people, but also real progress in terms of ridding the Iraqi nation of weapons of mass destruction, should they still exist.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the member's speech, which tried to indicate that others who spoke were only fearmongers and warmongers. I do not know why this member or anyone else would think that George Bush's speech was fearmongering when he is stating facts.

We do not need anybody's speech to be fearful of a person like Saddam Hussein who has proven to the world what he is capable of and what he will do. He has demonstrated it by killing thousands and thousands of his own people.

[An hon. member]

Bush is more of a threat to security. That is what Canadians said.