Mr. Speaker, first, I want to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Québec.
I am proud to speak on this motion, whose meaning is clear. It asks that Parliament and the government only send troops if there is a UN resolution authorizing the use of military intervention.
This motion is important because it allows us to discuss the basis of the position we have held and the basis of the opposition of the public everywhere. It is important to note that at this time support for this apprehended war is extremely weak except—it must be said—in the United States.
Elsewhere, there is opposition; in Europe, Canada—other colleagues have just commented on this—or in Quebec, where 49% are against war, even after a second UN resolution.
Is the public always against war? No. I remember Kosovo, the ethnic cleansing seen there and the desire for military intervention to prevent it. The Bloc Quebecois was very clear about this.
Our position is not to say no to war, but to clearly establish the importance of going through the United Nations at this extremely important and historic moment. Some say that resolution 1441 alone allows for military intervention under international law.
In fact, there are very few countries that claim this. However, many say—and this is especially true at the Security Council—that a second resolution is needed to authorize the use of military force to disarm Saddam Hussein.
Under these circumstances, wanting Canada to send troops only if there is such a resolution, is basically wanting to give peace every chance by giving the United Nations every opportunity to disarm Saddam Hussein by pressuring him to comply with the requirements of resolution 1441.
I would like to remind the House that the inspections process from 1991 to 1998 was effective. This has not been said enough. I would like to quote a text by Charles-Philippe David and one of his colleagues. Mr. David is director of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair at the University of Montreal. The text reads as follows:
UNSCOM's surprise inspections seem to have produced tangible results. UNSCOM will have destroyed more materials of mass destruction since 1991 than the entire coalition forces during the Gulf War in 1991. UNSCOM is estimated to have destroyed 48 SCUD missiles, 30 chemical and biological warheads, 60 launchers, almost 40,000 bombs and chemical shells, 690 tons of chemical agents and all Al-Hakam's biological weapons factories. Furthermore, UNSCOM forced Iraq to hide its weapons of mass destruction rather than developing them.
In his speech on Saturday, Kofi Annan also spoke of the effectiveness of UNSCOM and the United Nations inspections. So, these inspections have been effective.
Resolution 1441 has two basic components: demanding that Saddam Hussein actively disarm and trusting a new team to ensure disarmament and verify that disarmament is carried out properly.
Why would we now agree with President Bush, when he says, “The game is over?”. Honestly, I and the many constituents I saw in my riding this weekend think that this is not a game and that it is not over.
I must point out the importance of having the public's support in seeking a peaceful solution. Many people do not understand the relationship between disarmament that is slower than desirable, but that is continuing all the same, and the urgency of going to war, but not with just any means.
The Pentagon has said—whether it is true or just a ploy—that it will launch 3,000 bombs in 48 hours on the palaces which, as we know, are in Baghdad and in the cities, and then send troops into Baghdad.
Mere mention of this evokes horror. It must be kept in mind that the Iraqi people have suffered numerous wars since they have been under the heel of the dictator. They suffered during the 1990-91 war and under the embargo. Is there any urgency to launching into unrestrained war that does not even exclude the possibility of nuclear arms, rather than pursuing, for a limited period and not indefinitely, the disarmament process?
Thanks to France, Germany and Russia, which support the inspection process, an improved method has been proposed to help the inspectors to move ahead with this disarmament. France, Germany and Russia are going to table a resolution to ensure that, by stepping up technical and even military means, the intended objective can be met.
I want to make it clear that many find the legitimacy of this potential war somewhat dubious. For the war to gain legitimacy, there must of course be a certainty that it is legal under international law, that is there must be a second resolution, but also the objectives of the war must be made clear to all.
Is the great haste just to disarm Saddam Hussein, or could there be other objectives? I am not saying it is not the primary objective, but might there be others.
There might be such objectives as the desire to control gas and oil, most certainly with a view to ensuring U.S. hegemony. The United States' motive may be understandable, but rushing headlong into war cannot be accepted when other approaches are possible.
Being aware of those objectives does not, of course, mean sharing them. In order for there to be any legitimacy, as I have already suggested, there has to be a proper balance between the danger and resorting to war. International law does not permit pre-emptive strikes nor a war to overthrow a leader.
Peace must be given every possible chance and we must foresee any undesired consequences, such as making it hard to continue the war against terrorism, which is far more important.
We need to be able to count on the support of the Arab and Muslim countries and on public support. At this point in time, the consequences of a war, under the present circumstances, might be truly catastrophic.