House of Commons Hansard #74 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was international.

Topics

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

When the House broke for question period, the hon. member for Simcoe--Grey had the floor on questions and comments.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member what sequence of events one would follow if one wanted to encourage a rogue state and a delinquent dictator like Hussein. I think it would go something like this.

First, demand that Hussein disarm and then do nothing over the course of 12 years to actually enforce the demand.

Second, pass 16 or 17 resolutions in the UN demanding compliance from the Iraqi leadership to disarm and then do nothing to enforce the resolutions.

When the dictator of Baghdad gasses his own people and uses weapons of mass destruction, do nothing to take the weapons away.

When the UN Security Council votes unanimously for Iraq to disarm or face serious consequences, refuse to help our allies when they stand united in their efforts to pressure compliance.

When diplomatic efforts fail or if public opinion waivers, refuse to support our allies even in their efforts to get another tougher resolution through the council.

When the dictator of Iraq needs to hear a united, firm, unequivocal call to disarm or face military action, refuse to even take a position on the rightness or wrongness of that demand just in case someone opposes it later on in council.

Finally, when our closest allies and long time friends finally take the tough steps of enforcing resolution 1441, refuse to help them and refuse to stand by their side.

Can he think of a better way to ensure that someone who is as crazy as Saddam Hussein could be encouraged? I think that is what has happened. He has taken encouragement from the fact that when the going gets tough, everybody just leaves. They leave the tough lifting and the tough going to the Americans and our allies.

Saddam said that it looked to him that the world was divided so he will continue doing what he has done for 12 years successfully. He will continue to use weapons that have been declared illegal and continue to abuse his own people in the most heinous ways and try his luck because it seems to be working. Canada certainly has not taken a firm stand against it.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Bonwick Liberal Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which part of that to address considering the absolutely incredible number of inaccurate statements that the hon. member has made.

I should start with addressing the one that Canada has done nothing to address the potential breach of these UN conventions. That is simply not true. There is no country in this world that has been more aggressive in trying to get the allies together through the United Nations and the Security Council to address this means in a peaceful manner. That is the word that is escaping the Alliance. It is incumbent upon political leaders of this world and this country to pursue peace at all costs and exhaust all possibilities until such time as those possibilities have been fully exhausted.

Just as recently as today Dr. Blix made the statement that he felt he was making progress. Why would we not have let him for a few more weeks? The Prime Minister clearly showed leadership not only here in Canada on foreign policy but all around the world. When we talk about flip-flopping and inflammatory statements, one only needs to look at the Alliance.

I am sitting here looking at some of this stuff. I remember the last leader of the opposition talking about governing by consensus, governing by referendum or governing by plebiscite. Not only the majority of Canadians but the majority of people in the world have said to give peace a chance, not the warmongers across the way. Once again we see the official opposition flip-flop, whether it was the Reform, the United Alternative or the Alliance, whatever the case might be.

Obviously, Canadians recognize at face value the comments that are coming from across the floor. We have the Leader of the Opposition making statements that are erroneous and inaccurate. We have the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla make a statement that “we now find ourselves in the company of communist China, Libya, Iran and other tyrannies who oppose the liberation of Iraq”. Can we even tolerate such absolutely ridiculous comments from the opposition?

It boils down to one thing. The majority of members of Parliament in this House, the majority of people across this country, and the majority of people in the world want to source out a peaceful solution if at all possible. If that means a few more weeks, then by God it is incumbent upon us to exercise that option and pursue it, explore all other possibilities and support Dr. Blix. Dr. Blix was clearly indicating that he was making progress and if he required double, triple, quadruple the manpower or the resources, why not give it to him? Why not allow him to do what he was sent there to do?

I cannot help but feel a certain amount of shame for the members of Parliament from the official opposition.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.

It is with great sadness that I rise today because, last night, an illegal, immoral and illegitimate war began. It is a sad moment in the history of mankind. People all around the world are sad and many of them are worried.

In the last few weeks, I had the opportunity to meet people, including students at the École Arc-en-ciel in Lac-Saint-Charles, at the Polyvalente de Charlesbourg and at the Polyvalente Le Sommet. They told me: “Mr. Marceau, do whatever you can to prevent this war from happening. We do not want this war”. These young people said spontaneously, and not because they were prompted to do so by teachers or by some school board employee, that they were worried and that they wanted to avoid this war.

But, unfortunately, the war has begun. These students asked me: “What can you do as a member of Parliament? What influence do you have on this issue”? Unfortunately, I had to tell them that the government, through lack of leadership, refused to put this issue to a vote in the House. Considering what is at stake here, parliamentarians should have been given the opportunity to vote on this issue in the House.

The government should have taken the lead and given the hon. members the opportunity to vote on this issue. But they did not. It is only thanks to the Bloc Quebecois that the elected members of Parliament have the opportunity to officially express their opinion on this war, by voting on this motion. Of course, we should have held that vote before the start of the war. But again, because of a lack of leadership, that vote did not take place.

The Prime Minister said that Canada would not participate in the hostilities, and we commend him for this. However, if we are to be consistent and logical, we need to take action to avoid being caught in the middle of this, which could very well happen. We have ships in the Persian Gulf and some of our troops, taking part in exchange programs with the U.S. and the British armed forces, are also over there. What this means is that troops with the Canadian flag on their uniforms will be called upon to take part in the war against Irak, even though the government has said that Canada would not participate in that war. This is not logical.

It is crucial that the government recall our troops who are currently in the Persian Gulf, so that Canada will not be called upon to play an indirect role in a war that the people and the members of Parliament consider illegal, immoral and illegitimate.

The only invasion that should have happened in Iraq is an invasion of inspectors. With more inspectors and more time, we could have avoided this whole mess.

When we talk about war and dead people, be they soldiers, civilians, men, women or children, we are talking about waste and damage.

There should have been more inspectors and more time. Unfortunately, since the American government had probably decided from the beginning to take military action, this did not happen.

Now that this conflict has begun, the Government of Canada must insist on a cessation of hostilities. It must insist on this to avoid more lives being lost.

At the conclusion of the most terrible conflict in the history of humankind, the second world war, the world created an instrument, however imperfect—it was created by men and women and is thus imperfect by its very nature—and that instrument was the UN.

The UN was created to prevent such situations from ever happening again. The world created the UN to avoid pre-emptive wars, to ensure that might no longer made right and that conflicts would be solved in a peaceful and legal way, and no longer by force.

With the beginning of hostilities, unfortunately, the instrument that the world created, the UN, has suffered a serious blow.

Other solutions besides war would have been possible. Any unilateral action, any pre-emptive war is an illegal action. It is a breach of international law. However, the interpretation of the countries that initiated the strikes might be this. Martin Wolfe, of the Financial Times , summarized international law as seen by the Americans as follows:

The supreme law is the security of the republic—

We are talking here about the American republic. Too bad if the search for absolute security for the Americans means that others must live in absolute insecurity.

How dangerous it would be if this notion of international law won out over the multilateral and international approach, which should be the one guiding us today.

The beginning of hostilities will probably have consequences not only for Iraqi civilians and for Iraq itself, but also for the neighbouring regions. Several states are very unstable in the Middle East. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is still an open sore.

I am at a loss for words, and this does not happen very often. Because of these people who will die, probably by the thousands, and because of this destabilization of a situation that is already serious in the Middle East, this is not an auspicious day for humankind. It saddens me.

I will conclude by saying that it also saddens me that the government chosen by Canadians did not at least show leadership and allow parliamentarians in this House to vote before the beginning of hostilities to justify its refusal to take part in the conflict.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Gagnon Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, QC

Madam Speaker, despite pressure by the world community, despite millions of people protesting in the streets, including in my own region, and despite a lack of legitimacy, the United States has decided to wage a war.

First of all, I would like to emphasize the need to disarm Iraq. Indeed, this process was under way, thanks to the effective work of UN inspectors. Cooperation by Iraq suggested that peaceful disarmament was possible within a reasonable period of time.

It is also obvious that a political regime change in Iraq was desirable, and that it was a step that needed to be taken, but this in no way justifies the use of force. Members know very well that the overthrow of a regime is not seen by the UN as a motive for the use of armed force. If we were to intervene in all countries where a regime change is desirable, we would have our hands full. It is impossible to imagine the consequences.

I agree with the disarmament of Iraq, but it should be peaceful. The unfortunate aggression that started yesterday will have far-reaching consequences.

We must think first and foremost about the Iraqi people, who of course are those most immediately concerned. In a matter of hours, after only a few strikes, one civilian has already died and many have been injured. And this is only the beginning.

In addition to living under miserable conditions for a long time—Saddam Hussein is no stranger to this situation—these people will have to suffer through a war that may go on longer than expected and will inevitably see thousands injured, killed, widowed, orphaned, left homeless and traumatized.

Inflicting such harsh punishment on these people is an odd way of liberating them. Imagine what state the country will be in after this conflict. There is no doubt that we will have to participate in its reconstruction. But above all we must ease the suffering of these people during this war.

We must also think about the many families of the soldiers of the countries involved, who have seen their loved one for the last time, especially all those young children who will never see their father again except in a photograph. All these direct affects of the war should make us realize that we must do whatever it takes to avoid war. Only through diplomacy can we stop writing such dark chapters in the history of humanity.

This illegitimate war is hampering one that is justified, the war on terrorism. While we are going to great lengths to eliminate this kind of violence, by attacking Iraq the United States is providing terrorists with ammunition. Indeed this unjustified war may well give several potential suicide bombers the ammunition or the motivation they were lacking. I am not excusing them, but obviously the revolt caused by this aggression is a real powder keg.

This unilateral military action sets a dangerous precedent. The message it sends is this: Let us use the UN when it serves our interests. Otherwise, let us ignore it. We must admit that recent events are a serious slap in the face for this institution and that its credibility has been jeopardized.

It is essential for the future that we maintain a balanced world order by respecting these institutions. We must not go back to the law of the jungle and ignore the international community. No country is more important than all the other countries put together.

The international community must approve any military action. Otherwise the interests of individual countries will take on too much importance in international relations, resulting in a climate of confrontation and suspicion that will be bad for the vast majority of countries.

This is why we cannot accept the statement made this morning by the Prime Minister, who said in essence that now that the war has started we must stop criticizing the Americans in order to avoid encouraging Saddam Hussein, and that now that the offensive has been launched we should only look after our own security.

No. I do agree that we must ensure our security, but that should not prevent us from seeing that there are thousands of people like you and me whose life could still be saved. We will only succeed, or at least we will have done everything in our power to succeed, if we espouse the cause of peace, if Canada joins with the many countries who are speaking out against this aggression and calling for this attack to stop immediately so that the inspection and disarmament process can resume in Iraq and be carried through to completion.

In conclusion, can such international pressure succeed? It is doubtful, but if we exercise pressure to quickly stop the bloodshed, we might sleep better tonight.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Markham Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum LiberalMinister of National Defence

Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough East.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the motion before us today, particularly to say that we cannot support the amendment as it stands.

It is very important to understand what the Canadian Forces are doing, and why they are doing it.

Before getting into the details of these matters I would like to situate this a little. Even though Canada and the United States have come to a different conclusion on the question of Iraq, it is as true today as it was a week ago that the United States is Canada's greatest friend and ally.

On things that really count we are with the United States the great majority of the time. For example, there is nothing more important than the defence of our continent. Since 1940, Canada and the United States have had a solemn pact to defend jointly our continent against aggressors. Since that time as well, Canada has undertaken to ensure that the northern flank of the United States, the northern Canada-U.S. border, should not pose a security risk for the American people.

More recently, following the events of September 11, Canada was with the United States all the way in terms of the war against terrorism.

There are three issues that this amendment deals with. First, it deals with the soldiers, sailors, airmen and women on exchange with allies, including the United States. Second, it relates to our presence in Qatar. Third, it references the ships in the Persian Gulf. I will deal with these three issues one at a time.

Long before the situation in Iraq developed we made commitments to our allies and we fully intend to honour those commitments. On the subject of exchange officers, let me put this issue in context. There are only some 30 people who could be affected. These individuals are filling positions like ship technicians, air crew and headquarters staff. None of these people are in a direct combat position and none are authorized to use force except in self-defence.

These secondments have been an important part of our defence relations with our allies for decades. I cannot think of a worse time to renege on these commitments. At best, it is not the message we want to send to our allies at this critical time. At worst, it could put the lives of our allies at risk. It could compromise the integrity and effectiveness of our allies' missions and could jeopardize the security and safety of their colleagues.

I would like to make it clear that our personnel is under the responsibility of the Chief of the Defence Staff at all times.

In terms of the second issue, the presence of a number of liaison officers in Qatar, as I have already indicated, given Canada's decision regarding military action in Iraq, we are in the process of downsizing the number of people that we have in Qatar. We will not however be downsizing it to zero because we continue to lead the task force. We need some presence in Qatar to obtain the information necessary to carry out our role with this task force.

I come now to Canada's naval role. One has to understand that this goes back to our commitment to the war against terrorism. All members of the House will remember the horrific events of September 11, will remember Canada's response to those events, and will remember perhaps the ceremony outside the House of Commons where over 100,000 people showed up to mark our respect for those who were killed and our determination to join in this war against terrorism. We have been doing so since that time. At a certain moment we were the fourth largest contingent in Afghanistan in terms of the war on terrorism.

Canada's commitment to the international campaign against terrorism remains strong. As a consequence, we will not be removing our forces from the area. On the contrary, armed conflict in Iraq could lead to an increase in the terrorist threat. This is not the time to cut and run. This is the time to stand by our commitment to vanquish terrorism. Our contribution to the campaign against international terrorism has been and remains considerable, particularly on the naval side.

We currently have more than 1,200 members of the Canadian Forces deployed in the Persian Gulf. Two Canadian ships are en route to relieve HMCS Winnipeg and HMCS Montréal in that region.

Our ships are in the gulf to escort vessels transiting through the Arabian gulf and to protect them. Our ships are there to conduct maritime interdiction operations, to board suspected vessels to ensure that they are not carrying prohibited material or transporting terrorists. The outbreak of war in the region means that the terrorist risk may be even greater. For this reason, we will not remove our ships from the gulf.

Canada must be able to support and protect the military forces of those nations that are participating in or supporting the campaign against terrorism. If the ship of one of our allies comes under attack, members can be assured that we will certainly feel a duty to respond, and respond we will.

The fact that Canada was entrusted with this important responsibility speaks to the high quality of our navy and to its many accomplishments. Countries, including France, the Netherlands, Greece and New Zealand, have contributed ships to task force 151 and look to Canada for leadership and commitment. We will not let them down.

In closing, I want to commend the Canadian Forces for the superb commitment they have shown. They have proven themselves time and again. Whether on the ground, in the air or at sea, they have earned the respect of Canadians and our allies. We, the members of Parliament, should demonstrate solidarity and our support for their efforts and sacrifice.

I can assure members that we will not stand down from our commitments. We will not abandon the struggle for international peace and security and we will not abandon our allies if a serious security situation arises during these difficult moments in the region. It is for all of the above reasons that the government cannot support the proposed amendment to repatriate our members in the region.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Moore Canadian Alliance Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, I have a two part question. The first part is straightforward.

The Minister of National Defence says that Canada believes in standing up and fighting against terrorism. I want to know whether or not he believes that the fight against Iraq and Saddam Hussein is part of that or not. Does he believe that Saddam Hussein is part of a network of terrorism given his past efforts to help finance terrorists, to pay off, to finance terrorists' families who have terrorized Israel and murdered people because they happen to be Jewish? Does he not consider that terrorism and the efforts to get rid of Saddam Hussein as part of that effort?

Second, does the minister not understand that the government essentially has no position at all on Iraq because the government said that it would go to war if the UN Security Council voted yes? If France had not said outright that it would veto no matter what resolution was passed by the United Nations Security Council, then there would have been a vote. If the vote had gone eight to seven in favour of going to war, the Liberal government would have sent Canada's troops to war. If they had voted eight to seven against going to war, we would not go to war.

The government has delegated away its sovereign responsibility to decide whether or not to send troops into battle to the United Nations. That is the government's position. How can that be defended?

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham, ON

Madam Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate at this time for me to comment on the debate that has gone on for many months about the linkages or lack thereof between the government of Iraq and terrorists, al-Qaeda. I do not want to get into that.

Suffice it to say, as the Prime Minister indicated today, it is the government's hope that the war be swift and that the casualities be minimized. The foreign affairs minister and the Prime Minister have spoken for Canada and have said very clearly that while we respect and understand the United States' position, we in this country have a different position. We have decided that we would not participate in military action in Iraq because it is not supported by the Security Council of the United Nations.

As the Prime Minister and foreign affairs minister have stated many times, that is the position of the government.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his comments. The NDP is pleased to see the first step and the important step that the government has taken in terms of this war.

I and other members of the New Democratic Party would like to know whether the government and the minister are willing to make a statement about the legality of this war. At this point in time people such as former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who is hardly a defender of peace, are saying that a preventive attack on Iraq is inconsistent with international law.

It is important for the government to continue to move and for the Canadian people and nation to move in a proactive, positive, international fashion around this conflict. I would like to know whether the minister could make a statement now about the legality of the conflict that is taking place even as we speak.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The hon. Minister of National Defence has a minute and a half.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham, ON

I will need less than that Madam Speaker, because these issues are straying somewhat far from the role of the minister of defence.

I am aware that the British and the Americans have a legal case for their war. Other international lawyers have different opinions. I will not assess, as a minister of defence and before that an economist, the competing merits of alternative views regarding international law.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Moore Canadian Alliance Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, in my first two questions the minister did not answer either of them so I will give him the shortest question to answer. It is a yes or no answer.

In the fight against Saddam Hussein and his history of financing terrorist activities, does he believe that it is part of the fight against terrorism, yes or no?

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham, ON

Madam Speaker, I have already answered that question. I said that I would not enter into this debate because now that military action is underway, I will not comment on that debate regarding the link or the lack of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Order, please. I think the hon. members were given ample time to ask questions and comments. It is very hard for the Chair to listen to the answer when people are heckling back and forth.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON

Madam Speaker, in this short period of time I would like to comment on three things: one, the war against terrorism; two, the weapons of massive destruction; and three, what happens next.

The problem with the war on Iraq is it is based on the dubious premise that disposing of Saddam Hussein is a significant step toward combating terrorism and ensuring world security. This is not to downplay the fact that Hussein is a cruel dictator and deserves absolutely no sympathy. However, in my estimation, there is a true terrorist threat to world peace and security that is far more menacing than Iraq, and that is Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network.

Most countries, excluding the U.S., have limits as to how much manpower and money they can afford to spend on extraterritorial military operations. In my view, it would be wiser to concentrate those limited resources on more pressing areas of concern, such as getting at the root causes of terrorism and capturing its most deadly practitioners.

Clearly, the U.S. has been traumatized by September 11 and operates out of a mindset that we in Canada have trouble comprehending. It has become frightened and cautious and its administration has certainly been spooked by terrorism.

Until September 11, Canada and the U.S. lived a somewhat charmed existence. The bad things seemed to happen to other people and other countries. Gwynne Dyer, in his book Ignorant Armies: Sliding into War in Iraq , calls it American exceptionalism. He said:

The citizens of New York should have known that they were not so much exempt as lucky for the moment, but the powerful tradition of American exceptionalism misled them into thinking that invulnerability was their birthright.

The Americans have been shaken to their core. We should respect that fact and resist the temptation to call them names and impugn their motives.

From September 2001 until now, we have witnessed many twists and turns. Canada was and is a loyal ally in the war against terrorism. Even the much maligned France has been there for the fight against terrorism and as the French said post-September 11, “We are all Americans”.

Domestically, Canada has spent significant sums of money on security and legislation. We have updated our laws and have given our security forces the tools that they say they need. In my opinion, some of the expenditures have been questionable and the encroachment on citizens' rights has been very aggressive at times. It is pretty hard to tell whether the gain in security has been worth it and really, only history will answer that question.

We are partners in Afghanistan and have participated in proportion to our resources. I would argue that is where we should remain focused and that is where the U.S. should remain focused. Osama bin Laden has not been captured and the al-Qaeda network has not been destroyed. They are likely in northern Pakistan and still quite dangerous to world peace.

The question is, however, how did a legitimate war on terrorism mutate into a war on Iraq? One day we seemed to wake up and there was an axis of evil with its three charter members: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. It almost appeared to be a campaign of propaganda.

All these regimes can be described as tyrannical, anti-democratic and oppressive, but they cannot be described as terrorists in the same sense as al-Qaeda. Nor have they ever been accused of state sponsored terrorism, such as Libya or Syria for instance.

The war on Iraq may be a lot of things, but let us not confuse it with the fight against terrorism.

There are several perverse ironies here, the effect of which may actually give comfort to the terrorists of September 11.

Saddam Hussein is a Shia Muslim in a secular Muslim state. He is the antithesis of bin Laden's vision of an Islamic state.

Bin Laden is a Sunni Muslim from the Wahhabi sect, which sees itself as the only true version of Islam. In addition to being down on infidels like you and me, Madam Speaker, they despise Shia Muslims and they despise Muslims like Hussein.

Bin Laden has tried to have Hussein assassinated twice. In a perverse sort of way, bin Laden will be cheering President Bush, who he hopes will succeed where he has failed, although I dare to say they do not have the same thing in mind when they talk about regime change. I have this perverse image of Osama bin Laden in some cave with a little aerial outside the cave tuned in to CNN and cheering on George Bush.

It is a strange world when enemies such as Bush and bin Laden are cheering for the same result.

This war against Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism and might just be counterproductive. In my view, if the U.S. does not stay focused on bin Laden and his network, he may well enhance the risk of further terrorist attack and give al-Qaeda and others like them comfort.

The war on Iraq will likely exacerbate hatred against the United States, Israel and the west. Iraq will fracture along ethnic religious lines and give encouragement to one of the other members of the axis of evil, Iran. Already we hear of Shia Muslims crossing into Iraq at the Iran-Iraq border to finish off some business left over from the last 12 or 15 years.

In a post-war scenario, the U.S. occupying force will likely control Baghdad, but power will decline in inverse proportion to its distance from Baghdad. How strange it would be that Iran will also be cheering that President Bush has some success.

Having argued that the U.S. has lost its focus on that which threatens it the most, what then is the point of this war? If it is not terrorism, what is it? The argument is that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and is a threat to his people and his neighbours. Some might even argue that he has the ability to transport these weapons and do damage in the U.S. or sell them to terrorists.

Weapons of mass destruction come in three categories: nuclear, chemical and biological. The big one is nuclear. That is basically 98% of the game. It is powerful, very destructive and with a good delivery system can attack anyone, any place, any time.

The flaw in the argument is that no one in the Bush administration believes that Saddam Hussein has a viable nuclear weapons program. He may have bits and pieces here and there, but he cannot deliver them. The weapons inspectors have that one pretty well nailed down. If he does not have nuclear weapons, does he have biological or chemical weapons?

The U.S. has some basis for concern on this score as the U.S. sold the stuff to Hussein in the first place. As Dwyer in his mythical question to President Bush asks, “Mr. President, how can you be sure that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?” The answer, “We kept the receipts”. The U.S. sold him this stuff in order to stalemate the Iran-Iraq war. The problem is that the weaponization of this stuff is very difficult. It is useful in confined spaces such as battlefields and little villages, but not nearly as effective as nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam Hussein has no nuclear capability and his chemical and biological capability is severely curtailed, so where are the weapons of mass destruction that warrant going to war? Why would the world's only superpower start a war on those grounds? It does not make any sense.

The Prime Minister has tried to make the point that the Americans have already won the war. For 12 years there have been overflights. There are overflights and there are military satellites. Saddam Hussein cannot blow his nose without the Americans knowing what kind of kleenex he used.

For 12 years there has been a form of sanctions and presumably the coalition forces have a pretty good idea of the goods that are going into and out of Iraq. For 12 years on and off weapons inspectors have been playing hide and seek.

I appreciate the president is frustrated and is impatient, but there have been results. We saw missiles actually being destroyed. It is also a great deal less risky and less expensive to play cat and mouse than to start a war. What is the rush? This could go on for years, I am perfectly prepared to admit that, but during all of that time the mouse cannot run anywhere.

Again if this is not a war about terrorism, and it is not about weapons of mass destruction, and it is not about inspections, what is it about? It is just speculation as to what it is all about, but on speculation, I am not prepared to recommend going to war.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's statement that he is not prepared to go to war. I certainly expect that most Canadians would look for another option.

I would ask him if he would have been prepared to continue the sanctions against Iraq, as well as the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children. It sounds to me as though that is his alternative, that we just leave the status quo in place, continue to ignore reality and allow the Iraqi regime to rape, pillage and murder its own citizens by gassing them in the streets of their own towns.

That apparently is not a problem for the member. I would like to know if the status quo is just fine.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member has to realize that this is a choice between quick death or slow death. It is utterly naive to believe that this war will be without civilian casualties.

I do not frankly know how many deaths sanctions have caused over the course of a number of years but it certainly has been a degraded existence for the Iraqi people. I am certainly prepared to concede that. However when bombs are dropped on people, it would be extremely naive to think there would not be collateral damage.

We have a very unhappy equation here. Would it be better to kill a lot of people quickly or a few less people more slowly?

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Sarkis Assadourian Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, the opposition complains that we are anti-American because of our stand to not participate in the war. In 1956, during the Suez crisis, the U.K., France and Israel attacked Egypt. The U.S. government was the only government opposed to the invasion. It even threatened to blow up British ships in the Mediterranean. Now they are best buddies.

Some people think by Canada staying out of the war now, it will create such animosity between us that the Americans and Canadians will be fighting forever as enemies. If the U.S. and England were able to unite the day after the war, why can we not support each other to build Iraq after what happens, and continue on to be good friends?

Could my hon. colleague comment on this relationship between the U.K. and the U.S. now?

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON

Madam Speaker, I know there is some concern in Canada about the relationship we have with our American neighbours and in some respects that is a well placed concerned. However I dare say that it was true with former Prime Minister Trudeau when he had some differences with former President Nixon but we seemed to get over it.

Similarly we had differences with former Prime Minister Thatcher from time to time but I dare say we got over it.

We have a constellation of values that is very similar and that constellation of values is one that I think we need to rely on and we will.

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Moore Canadian Alliance Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Scarborough said that there is only speculation about why the United Nations would go to war. Here is a theory. Because Iraq has violated United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, the violation of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 allows the use of force in response. The current Liberal Prime Minister said that in The Guardian in Charlottetown. That is rationale.

Could the minister for Scarborough comment on whether he disagrees with his own leader?

Committees of the HouseGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the elevation to minister and if I could learn about that, it would be good.

We are into a realm of speculation as to why go into this war at this time. Clearly there was a cascading series of resolutions which ended with 1441. I think there are something in the order of 14 or 17 resolutions that have built up over time. Ultimately I think they would lead.

The question here is whether we are achieving the goal of those resolutions, which is disarmament. There was some considerable evidence that they were achieving some level of disarmament, not as happily or quickly as President Bush would have liked, and it was not costing any lives or creating divisions among a variety of countries. There was a means by which they were disarming.

I would have liked it to be faster. It was not happening as quickly as the President liked.