Madam Chairman, this debate on Iraq is generating a great deal of passion and interest. The stakes are high. There is a serious possibility that the United States, and whatever allies they can bring on board if they cannot get the UN Security Council's approval, will unilaterally declare war on Iraq.
Like many of my colleagues, I have received hundreds of messages and calls on this issue from people in my riding. I would like to thank and congratulate theese people for taking the time to contact me on this issue. I will read a few of these documents.
I have here a letter from a woman by the name of Josée, whose family name I will not mention:
I am writing to you as the member for my riding to voice my vigorous opposition to war against Iraq. I believe:
(1) that the very principle of a preventive war is an aberration and is detrimental to the whole world and that negotiated solutions must always be favoured;
(2) that there is no evidence that this war would prevent anything whatsoever and that it might instead poison already bad relations between that region and the western world;
(3) that this war will first and foremost serve the political and economic interests of the United States;
Consequently, I think that our government has a duty to take a clear stand against this war and to bring all the pressure necessary to bear at the international level to avert it.
I do hope the Canadian government will remember that it must represent the Canada population, which is against this war.
I would like to read a second message that comes from a person who lives on Jumonville Street and whose name is Amélie:
You know better than anyone that the United States is preparing to launch an attack against Iraq. This intervention will have a serious impact on the people of Iraq—
According to the United Nations, between 142,000 and 206,000 people died in the gulf war. Since 1991, the embargo on Iraq has led to the death of more than 500,000 children—
Furthermore, the United Nations estimates that 23 million people will need food aid for more than one year after a military intervention—
You have a responsibility to find non-violent solutions to this conflict. What will you do to show that you oppose the war and violence? Will you be an example for my child and for future generations?
Her position can be boiled down to four points:
No to Canada's participation in the war, even with a Security Council resolution.
Yes to a free vote in Canada's Parliament.
No to the United States' war effort.
Yes to the end of sanctions that are killing the Iraqi population.
I have another letter from a couple, Denis and Sylvie, who live on Vendéens Avenue, in Anjou:
As Canadian citizens and residents of Anjou, we staunchly oppose Canada's participation in a war against Iraq. As our riding's representative, we ask that you pressure Parliament to:
(1) Clearly announce Canada's position in the event of a declaration of war by the United States against Iraq without a mandate from the UN—
(2) Stop the increasingly automatic alignment of our policy with U.S. policy—
(3) Freeze and even decrease the defence budget—
And the message continues.
I will not say that I agree one hundred percent with all of these requests, but I can say that I have not received one message saying the opposite. Of the hundreds of messages we received, none said that Canada should immediately ally itself with the United States, with or without the UN, and go to war against Iraq. None of the messages said that.
I must reflect this view, which is very widely shared, particularly by my constituents and by Quebeckers, and people from the Montreal area.
What also makes me want to take part in this evening's debate is the speech delivered by Mr. Bush yesterday evening, which followed the tabling, on Monday, of the inspection teams' report.
What struck me in Mr. Bush's speech is that the U.S. President spoke constantly of war, threats and the use of force. He advocated unilateral action and preventive strikes. He donned the mantle of patriotism. Last night, he even sounded like a preacher at the end of his speech. Let me read the closing paragraph of his speech.
Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.
We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know--we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history.
May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.
I think they have to be very conceited to think of themselves as God's representatives and chosen ones on earth, being responsible, as Heaven's intermediaries, for bringing freedom to the poor ignorants who do not have the good fortune to be living in the United States.
Mr. Bush and the American Republicans do not have much legitimacy to act as international referees and vigilantes. After barely managing to get elected in their own country two years ago, they have not been very successful from an economic point of view and in the area of rights, on the contrary. Moreover, they are ringing up a deficit.
What gives them the right to tell the world what to do? Mr. Bush did not even get half of the votes of half of the U.S. voters. Reminding our friends south of the border that they should do their democratic homework at home before claiming to be the agents of democracy in the world is not being anti-American. The Bush administration did not get any mandate from a majority of Americans, the UN, or Canadians to wage war against anyone.
The option before us as Canadians is to work for peace within the UN framework—making use of the timeframes involved, as it seems there may be a few weeks of inspection left—to suggest approaches along the lines of international cooperation. There are other kinds of inspections that might be contemplated, if the others get nowhere.
It is,however, up to the Security Council to decide. In my opinion, there should be another debate within a few weeks and another resolution should be adopted and examined by all member states, all member states on the Security Council and all parliaments, including ours. Then we shall see what the best approach is.
I think that if we can move away from what we heard in last night's speech, which leads straight to war unilaterally, we could look at other approaches, such as stepping up cooperative programs and measures promoting dialogue with a number of countries. I feel that Canada has a good international reputation and it would be in all our best interests to work toward this.
Moreover, here in this country, in the United States, and in Europe and everywhere else in the world, we have many allies who would support us and stand by us if we took that direction, for it is the path of dignity and responsibility, and we would retain the confidence of the Canadian people.