House of Commons Hansard #76 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was iraq.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Stockwell Day Canadian Alliance Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member who just gave his presentation made a statement that Canada should not be involved with our allies because there was not approval from the UN Security Council.

By the way, most of what the member was saying seemed to be endorsing the motion I proposed so I hope he will vote for it when it comes to the floor for a vote tomorrow.

However would he answer this question? He said that it was essential that Canada not be involved in the conflict unless it had the go ahead from the UN Security Council, and yet in 1999 in the military intervention that included the bombing of Kosovo in which Canadians were involved, and in my view quite rightly, there was no UN Security Council approval. As a matter of fact, the United Nations once again in that instance, as in many others, failed to stop the massacre of people. There were a number of times when the United Nations has failed miserably to do that.

If the Prime Minister and the government felt it was all right to be in Kosovo on a military intervention which had no UN Security Council approval, I have to assume that there is some kind of list of criteria which the government uses when it decides whether it will be involved in a particular intervention because we were involved in Kosovo without UN approval.

Could the member share with us the list of criteria by which the government decides that, yes, it will stop a madman like Milosevic but who really is in the junior leagues of tyranny and murder compared to the far greater madman Saddam Hussein? Could the member explain the differences for us?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Gar Knutson Liberal Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a valid question and one that can be fairly easily explained. The situation on the ground was quite different. It was the government's view back in 1999 that the UN Security Council had received what was an arbitrary veto by the Russians. The facts on the ground screamed out for immediate intervention. A genocide was going on.

Kofi Annan at the time even invited members to come forward with their own solutions and expressed disappointment with the UN Security Council. In the situation that led up to this war the facts were quite different. A UN inspection process was going on. Blix and the inspectors were asking for more time. The Iraqis seemed to be adjusting to the inspection process, albeit rather late in the game. Therefore I think it clear that the facts were quite different.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Stockwell Day Canadian Alliance Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Speaker, first, Dr. Blix, along with every other country in the world, continue to say that Saddam Hussein was not complying with resolution 1441.

The member said that the situation on the ground was much different, that a genocide had to be arrested. I agree with that. The number of people Milosevic had massacred up to that point were about 8,000. It was tragic. The numbers were huge but they are tiny in comparison to the number of people being massacred by Saddam Hussein in his own country every year. A million people have died since he became leader of Iraq in 1979. Since 1991 his murder rate is approximately 100,000 and that does not include those who are disappearing in prisons. It does not include those who are disappearing in the rape rooms of Saddam Hussein.

Here again my point is that Saddam Hussein has a far greater record of genocide against his own people than Milosevic ever did. Why do we not agree to stop him?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Gar Knutson Liberal Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back. The hon. member asked what our criteria was. I would suggest that part of Canadian values is that going to war is a last resort. Reasonable people can differ as to when that is and I respect those differences. However it was clear from our point of view that there was a process going on. Many members on the Security Council agreed with us that the process should have been allowed to continue.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Markham Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the second part of the opposition motion. Although Canada and the United States came to a different conclusion on Iraq, it is as true today as it was a week or a month ago that the United States remains Canada's greatest friend and ally.

It was over 60 years ago that the two countries signed an agreement in Ogdensburg by which Canada undertook always to work co-operatively with the United States in the joint defence of our continent against our common enemies, whether those enemies were Nazi Germany during the second world war, the Soviet Union in the cold war or terrorists today.

Equally fundamental, Canada has undertaken for decades to ensure that America's northern flank, the Canada-U.S. border, never poses a security risk for the people of that country. We have been working and, indeed, redoubling our efforts over the past weeks, months and years.

Finally, following the events of September 11, 2001, it became apparent that the defence of North America required going overseas in pursuit of those terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center on September 11. Canada was part, in the early days, of the forces to fight in Afghanistan and, indeed, at one point we were the fourth largest contingent.

The point I would like to make today is that notwithstanding our disagreement with the United States over policy on Iraq, our commitment to terrorism remains strong, as strong as ever, notwithstanding the greater risk we face.

That brings me as well to the question of principle where the opposition claims that we are not acting on principle. I would say that we are. We are acting on two principles, the first of which was referred to by my colleague, the principle of Canada remaining true to our multilateral traditions and to the United Nations; and the second principle, which has more to do with my portfolio, is that we remain true to our commitment to fight terrorism.

Notwithstanding the different conclusions to which we have arrived on Iraq, our commitment to terrorism remains as strong as ever, if not stronger than it was before this war broke out, and that is a very important principle to which I would like to refer in my remarks.

Naturally I fully support the part of the opposition's motion that calls for the House to offer its unequivocal support for members of the Canadian Forces serving in the gulf region. I said this last week when I urged members of Parliament to demonstrate solidarity in our support for their continued efforts and sacrifice. I will say it again. I am proud of the Canadian Forces wherever they are working. The training, courage and humanity of our men and women in uniform are second to none. They have proven this time and again in operations around the globe.

We have a duty to provide support to members of the armed forces, regardless of where they are serving. Why do they merit our support? Quite simply because they are prepared to defend us and to defend what we believe as a nation.

They accepted the principle of unlimited responsibility. They are prepared to risk their lives for Canada and, as a result, merit our unconditional support at the very least.

There is no question that we fully support our personnel currently serving on board ships in the Arabian Sea region. We are proud of them. They are fulfilling important responsibilities and are contributing directly to international peace and security. For example, they have conducted maritime interdiction operations on vessels entering and leaving Iraq.

Also, since the fall of 2001 and the attacks on the United States, the primary focus of our ships has been their contribution to the campaign against terrorism through the conduct of visit and search operations. These operations entail boarding vessels and making sure that they are not helping al-Qaeda or Taliban members escape the area. Since the earliest days of Operation Apollo, our ships have been doing an outstanding job. They have hailed more than 10,000 ships and conducted more than 260 boardings. This represents about 60% of all the boardings carried out by the coalition fleet.

As well, Canadian ships escort and protect vessels transiting through the Arabian 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 a ship of one of our allies comes under attack, members can be assured that we respond: Let there be absolutely no doubt about that.

As further proof of the high quality of the work being done by Canadian Forces members and ships in the region, Canada has recently assumed command of a multinational task force of ships called Task Force 151, consisting of not only Canada and the United States but also Holland, New Zealand, France and Greece. Canadian command of Task Force 151 under Commodore Roger Girouard represents a significant geographic expansion of Canada's area of operation in the Arabian Gulf region, and the added responsibilities will enhance Canada's ongoing contribution to the campaign against terrorism.

As well, we should be proud of the members of our air force who are currently deployed in southwest Asia.

Last week I mentioned that the outbreak of war on Iraq would lead to an increase of the terrorist threat in the region. The mission being carried out by our ships, aircraft and personnel in the region therefore becomes much more important. I think another important point to emphasize is that certain members of the opposition, notably the Bloc and the NDP, would wish us to withdraw our ships just when the risk of a terrorist threat becomes higher; in other words, when the going gets tough or the risk becomes greater, we cut and run. That is not the policy of the government.

We Canadians are fortunate to live in a country where there is peace. The events of September 11 have, however, made us aware that no one is totally sheltered from danger.

This is not the time to stand down from our responsibilities and commitments. This is not the time to falter in our support for the Canadian Forces and our allies.

As I have indicated, the situation in Iraq may mean increased risks to our personnel in the region and I want to advise members of the House that we have taken the necessary precautions to protect our personnel from possible biological and chemical attacks. All of our ships are designed to survive such attacks. They are equipped with wash-down systems and with so-called citadel protection, which gives the ships the capacity to seal themselves in the event of a biological or chemical attack. Each of our ships also carries protective suits, gas masks and filters to protect all personnel from chemical or biological agents. Our troops deserve the best protection against possible attack and we have made sure that they have it.

I should mention the exchange officers. We have a longstanding commitment to exchange military personnel with our allies. This commitment predates armed conflict in Iraq and is now a matter of routine military business, business which benefits our members and allies a great deal. At this time there are about 30 Canadian exchange officers whose units may be participating in the conflict in Iraq. Based on the nature of their employment and national direction to them, these members will use force only in self-defence. Let us remember that national command of these troops is and will remain at all times with our chief of defence staff.

Our allies count on our exchange officers. They are fully integrated into the operations of their units. We have absolutely no intention of breaking our commitments to our allies, particularly at this critical time. Their sudden withdrawal could potentially endanger the security and safety of allied personnel, and it would damage the reputation of Canada and the Canadian Forces as a trusted ally. For all of these reasons, our exchange officers will remain where they are.

In closing, on behalf of the members of the Canadian Forces, I would like to express my condolences in regard to the fallen comrades, the American soldiers who have died so far in these operations. I would also like to express my wish, as the Prime Minister did last week, that the Americans prosecute this war successfully and that it comes to an early conclusion in order to minimize human suffering and loss of life on all sides.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Given the number of members who wish to ask questions of the Minister of National Defence, I would hope that the questions and the responses could be within a minute.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I will make my question very brief. I listened carefully to the Minister of National Defence outlining that having exchange officers placed with allied military partners is a routine matter, that it is really routine military business and not to be trifled with in any way, but surely the Minister of Defence would agree there is nothing routine about finding ourselves in the situation where our American neighbours have launched an illegal war in defiance of international law.

We find ourselves embroiled in a situation where, certainly to date, the minister and the government have not been able to clearly answer questions about the terms of engagement which would guarantee that Canadian armed forces personnel are not in any way, shape or form associated with or participating in that illegal war.

I would ask the minister to address that question. If he now can provide clear answers about the terms of engagement, then at least that would enlighten us as to what kind of rationale he is using in backing up his assertion that this is routine business.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham, ON

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that we express our condolences in regard to the fallen British soldiers as well.

In response to the hon. member, while I would echo the former deputy prime minister and not accept her various premises, I would also say that while war is never routine, nevertheless exchange programs are routine in the sense that Canada has been carrying out these programs for decades with our allies. They form a very important part of working together with our allies. We never work alone. We always work with one or more allies. These exchanges are important for purposes of interoperability and working better together.

As I said in my speech, we do not intend at all to withdraw these exchange officers. At best, such an action would send an extremely negative message to our allies at this difficult time. At worst, it could put the lives of our allied soldiers in jeopardy and this the government will not do.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister should face the fact that his approach is inconsistent.

First, the Prime Minister announced last week that Canada would not follow the Americans to war in Iraq. Now, under the cover of joint operations and exchange programs with our allies, there are people accompanying American officers in Qatar. There are probably ground soldiers attached to combat units following the Americans into Iraq and there are ships in the gulf. The minister has just said himself that if the ships are attacked while escorting warships, they will defend themselves.

Currently, we have military forces involved in the war in Iraq. However, last week, the Prime Minister told us that he would not follow the Americans' lead. I would like the minister to explain this inconsistency. In our minds, this inconsistency will exist until all these soldiers have been withdrawn.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, the government's approach is in no way inconsistent. What the hon. member opposite is criticizing are the very things I am proud of.

He is criticizing us for having ships in the gulf to support the war against terrorism. I am proud of this involvement. With regard to our gulf war allies, be they British, Australian or any of the other nations with ships there, we are there to protect them against terrorism. The risks are greater now, and we are proud to be there.

If the hon. member wants to criticize us for that, that is his business, but I am proud that we are there.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, the minister has, in words, expressed support for our military personnel. I would like to ask him how those words are backed up by actions.

For example, a helicopter on our ships increases the capability of those ships severalfold. Last week there was a time when we had no operational helicopters on board our ships and Canada is supposed to be proudly leading this battle group. We have a report, which the minister dismisses, done a month ago by Captain Hill, whose job it is to point out deficiencies in the Sea Kings and their equipment. This report says the Sea Kings are not safe to operate, that they cannot carry out the function they are supposed to be carrying out in the gulf right now, which is that interdiction work, that escort work, yet the minister dismisses this work done by very competent and capable Canadian Forces members with input from several crews who fly Sea Kings.

I want to ask the minister why his words say one thing and his actions say exactly the opposite.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, the main thing I dismiss is the credibility of the claims of the hon. member across the way, because on the question of the safety of the Sea Kings, I could believe him or I could believe our chief of defence staff, himself a helicopter pilot, who assures me of their safety. I could believe him or I could believe the three helicopter pilots with whom I had a conversation recently.

As well, I have the evidence coming from the very successful operations carried out by our Sea Kings in the course of the war against terrorism over many months.

But I would acknowledge, and tragically and sadly we have seen this in a number of helicopter accidents or crashes in the last few days, as well as one a week or so ago in New York, that flying in general and flying helicopters in particular inherently can be dangerous and is risky. Therefore, we in the House should have particular praise for those who carry out this mission, which by its very nature does have its risks.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

From the outset I would like to say that we have some problems with the Canadian Alliance's four-part motion. We take issue with all four paragraphs.

The first paragraph says: “endorse the decision of the Allied international coalition of military forces to enforce Iraq’s compliance—”. This seems to be the exact opposite of the motion that we passed last week.

During an opposition day, the Bloc Quebecois moved a motion that was voted on by the Parliament of Canada. This motion said the exact opposite of the motion being moved today by the Canadian Alliance. We called upon the government not to participate in the military intervention initiated by the United States in Iraq.

This was also consistent with a statement made by the Prime Minister last week—a 35 second statement made during oral question period—when he announced that Canada would not follow the U.S. because this intervention did not have the support of the UN.

I think the first paragraph of our colleague's motion—which states that at present, we are going to support the allied coalition's decision to go to Iraq—contradicts the motion that we passed last week.

I would like to remind him that last week his party and the Progressive Conservative party voted against the motion. I think a good majority of the members of this House agreed that we should not follow the U.S. in Iraq, for all the reasons described in the preceding weeks.

Why do we disagree with this motion? Quite simply because the Bloc Quebecois has said from the beginning that it is against war or pre-emptive strikes. Anything that is not supported by the UN is very dangerous. We are beginning to see the tip of the iceberg.

We were told that it was going to be a walk in the park, a picnic; that is far from the case right now. We also heard that everything would be done to avoid civilian casualties. That does not seem to be the case right now, either. When Baghdad is deluged with missiles, there will inevitably more than just military casualties. Civilians live in that city. They are being held prisoner there and civilian lives will be lost.

So, we cannot agree with those who think we should be there. In fact, since the beginning, we have said that there must be agreement within the UN, that there must be an agreement. Any military intervention must be carried out under the auspices of the UN, and this is not the case. This intervention is pre-emptive, and we cannot support that, either.

What would prevent South Korea, then, from attacking North Korea tomorrow? They could say, “Listen, we felt they were a threat. So, we want to attack them now”.

The fact that it is happening without the UN's sanction is a serious problem. We have been consistent since the beginning. We said that we would not take part in a war without UN approval. We also asked for proof and unfortunately we did not give them enough time.

The United States, Britain and Spain short-circuited the whole inspection process, thereby causing a war. They intervened directly on the ground and the inspectors were forced to leave the area, despite reports from Hans Blix, the chief inspector, that all was going very well, as we thought. They decided to attack, at the expense of civilian loss of life and in terms of other costs the war will involve, not just in terms of monetary costs, but also in terms of the political stability of the region.

We are starting to see this elsewhere. Turkey is threatening to move into northern Iraq. Many neighbouring countries are powder kegs. If the Arab world sees this as a threat against all Arabs, which it currently does, I think that terrorism will flare up again, not only in those countries, but even here in North America. Let us hope that it will not happen in Canada, but the Americans certainly fear such terrorist attacks because, since the war started, they have substantially increased security.

So, the first paragraph does not work. Neither does the second paragraph, which asks the House to express its unequivocal support for the Canadian service men and women. I really do want to express my support for the overall role played by the Canadian forces, but everyone knows that some of them are now in Iraq and that some of them are taking part in these activities. This is an incredible contradiction by this government.

On one hand, the Prime Minister is telling us, “We are not going”. On the other hand, he is saying, “We have exchanges with our allies, and we will go with them”. This amounts to doing indirectly what we said we would not do directly; it is the same thing.

People have been captured; British and Americans have been killed. What would have happened if a Canadian soldier had been captured? This is a strong possibility. What sort of problem would that have created for us? We said last week that we are not going, but some of our soldiers are there. This is not logical.

The second part of the motion expresses the hope that all will return safely and quickly to their homes. We agree with this. However, the best way to ensure this is to bring them home immediately. We should be consistent in our decision not to take part. The best way to ensure their safety is probably to bring them home immediately and to say, “We are no longer taking part”. This is not currently the case.

Right now, we still have officers in Qatar who are planning scenarios, watching the evolution of the war in Iraq and adjusting scenarios accordingly. Canadians are taking part.

The minister just said that Canadian ships are going to accompany British and American warships and that if they are attacked, the Canadian ships will defend them. Therefore, they are taking part in the war. There are American and British combat units in which Canadian soldiers are currently fighting and the minister says they are going to stay there because otherwise we would be deserting our allies.

Again, this is inconsistent with the resolution the Prime Minister moved last week, namely that we would not follow the U.S. in this war. There are many inconsistencies and we have not even mentioned the AWACS planes; the famous planes that spy on Iraqi territory, on which you will surely find Canadian airmen. They are also taking part in the war. They certainly will not fire any shots, but they are informing ground troops on what is happening in Iraq to try to pinpoint the situation and provide support to military operations to make them as effective as possible. They too are taking part in the war.

And then there was the question asked last week about the special forces. Naturally, the minister told us, “No, absolutely not. There are no special forces”. Yet, I would like to remind the House that with regard to Kosovo, as soon as the war there had ended, the government admitted, “Yes, our special forces were there”.

Do I need to remind the House that in Afghanistan it was through a photograph on the front page of the Globe and Mail that we learned that the special forces were there? I have the feeling that forces that are likely special have joined the American Delta Forces and the British SAS troops and are currently on the ground.

The best way to ensure the safe and sound return of our soldiers would be to say immediately, “Get out of there and come home”. This has to be done before the situation gets worse and someone is killed or taken prisoner. If that were to happen, Canada's contradictory stand would become absolutely clear.

No one disagrees with extending support and sympathy to the people of Iraq. However, we are being consistent. From the beginning, we wanted to avoid massacres; we wanted to avoid the intense bombardment of Baghdad that is currently going on.

We knew there would be civilian losses, if it came to pass. Right from the start, the Bloc has been saying, “Let us allow the inspectors to continue, for they will bring the inspection to a suitable conclusion without any need for war. It will take longer, but war will not be necessary”. We were motivated by compassion right from the start, and have been calling for support for the people of Iraq right from the start. Our approach in the House has been to say, “Give peace a chance, say no to war”.

Finally, our Canadian Alliance colleague is calling upon the government to commit to helping the people of Iraq, but neglects to mention that this must also be done under the UN umbrella. This is the time to rebuild the bridges that have been broken down at the UN. If his motion stated that this must be done immediately, but within the UN, I think many would find this satisfactory. There are, therefore, a number of aspects in his proposal that force us to say that we cannot subscribe to it.

In conclusion, I must add that we have been in favour of a peaceful approach right from the start. We express support and compassion for the people of Iraq and will continue to do so in question period today. As I said last week, one more day of war is, for us, always one day too many.

We must work to put an end to this butchery and to get back on the path of peace, from which the world has strayed. The Bloc Quebecois will most definitely object to the motion before us at this time.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, since March 19, there hase been cause for great sadness. The United States and Britain have committed their armed forces to a war against Iraq. The Prime Minister of Canada said that this war is unjustified, illegal and illegitimate.

I would like to point out that more than 750,000 Quebeckers marched on the streets in Montreal, Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec City, Chicoutimi, Sherbrooke, Rivière-du-Loup, Gaspé, Gatineau and many other communities, I am sure. Every region of Quebec is against this war. As well, last week, 1,162 students from the polyvalente Deux-Montagnes in my riding asked me to deliver a petition against this war to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which I did.

This weekend, the Les Patriotes scouting association in Saint-Eustache, the Les Patriotes continuing education centre in Saint-Eustache and the high school in Oka all sent me petitions asking the Prime Minister not to change his mind and not to involve the Canadian military in this war. Clearly, since the outbreak of hostilities, human beings, civilian and military, from both sides, have died. Such a tragedy. Such an atrocity.

Today we ask ourselves the question: why is this war being fought? Is this a pre-emptive war? That makes no sense. As it was already mentioned, we do not know whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors, having left the country in 1998, were starting over with the inspection process. Obviously, there are some in the United States who were convinced that the answer to this question is yes. They feel that the United States and the world should intervene militarily to ensure everyone's security. So far, the inspectors found nothing to confirm that Iraq had re-established its nuclear program.

Of course, Saddam Hussein would have loved to get his hands on a nuclear weapon and he probably has chemical and biological weapons in his arsenal. However, does this justify a so-called military intervention? Is it justified?

Of course, we do not want to discover that Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons only when he uses them. However, this attack is illegal under international law. No country has the right to attack another country because it thinks it should for whatever reason. In fact, there must be solid proof for any intervention. This is akin to what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbor.

But the greatest danger of a pre-emptive strike is the precedent created. Now that the United States has attacked Iraq, what will prevent other countries from intervening to stop much greater threats? Japan could attack North Korea, India could attack Pakistan, and so on.

It should also be said that all this seems a bit simplistic. How many other regimes have or could have weapons of mass destruction? Should they be attacked?

How many other dictators represent a threat to their region? So, we are stuck in a very pragmatic, selective and, by its nature, unstable policy. In answer to this argument, the United States can only flex its muscles and tell the world that it is an exception on the international scene.

In terms of the war against terrorism, is this war part of the fight against terrorism? This is another question that must be asked. The inspectors could not find conclusive proof that Saddam Hussein's regime is helping or helped Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. However, the war provides plenty of reasons to resort to terrorism.

In terms of disarming Iraq, I think that the international community, through diplomacy, was on the right track. In fact, on March 17, UN inspectors said that 72 al-Samoud missiles had been destroyed, approximately half of Iraq's stockpile of such weapons. The destruction undertaken constituted a substantial measure of disarmament, according to chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. Mohamed El-Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, indicated, during the same session, that he had found no evidence of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq nor that Iraq had attempted to import depleted uranium or uranium.

On March 10, the UN chief inspector announced that he would be prepared to submit a new report to the Security Council next week. Unfortunately, March 19 put an end to that.

There is one more question one might well ask: why this war? To get Saddam Hussein out of power? Yes, getting rid of Saddam Hussein might be a good reason, but I think that diplomacy, coupled with pressure from neighbouring countries, could have pushed him into involuntary retirement.

There is another question: might this have something to do with controlling the region's oil? No sooner asked than answered, that one.

Now, having asked those questions, I have one very important and highly complex point to raise: what about after the conflict? I agree that we need to acknowledge the complexity of the question, as well as the regional and international impacts of the situation, and will raise a few points in this connection.

Other Arab countries are seeing public demonstrations, and some other governments might fall if they were to support the United States too openly. This would clearly be a backward step.

There is the question of transition, the post-Saddam era. The United States will stay there. The Kurd issue is of concern to Turkey, which has its own problems with its Kurdish minority. Syria, with an ethnic mix similar to Iraq's, is concerned about the possible disintegration of Iraq. The Palestinian question is also of great importance to any assessment of the situation. Let us keep in mind that Saddam Hussein is trying every way possible to mobilize the Arab world against the Americans and their Israeli allies.

In closing, Canada must speak out loud and clear before important decisions are made on the future of Iraq.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle. Second, I would say in the clearest possible terms, and I am sure this will not surprise the members of the official opposition, particularly the foreign affairs critic of the Alliance, that I personally and my party unanimously stands in very strong disagreement with the motion before this House today in which they once again are putting forward what in our perspective is an absolutely uncritical embracing of the illegal war that has been launched by George Bush.

To talk about the coalition of the willing is to simply ignore the spectacle that unfolded before our eyes of the kind of threatening, bullying and bribing by the Bush administration to try to bring a number of countries into that so-called willing coalition. Someone quite accurately suggested that a more apt term for many of the nations that fell into line in the face of those pressures would be coalition of the coerced. It is not missed on people that a good many of those countries are extremely vulnerable to American retaliation, in many cases the poorest countries, and I think it has been one more very unhappy chapter in this devastating chapter for world history through which we are now living.

However I welcome the fact that the official opposition has today put before Parliament once again for debate the continuing horrors of what is happening in this illegal war. It is appropriate for us as parliamentarians not to for a moment accept the characterization that has been placed on Canada's decision to not involve itself directly in the war.

I noted the words that were used by the official opposition spokesperson, the foreign affairs critic, which essentially created the impression that Canada failed to take any responsibility whatsoever for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein and that it walked away from its responsibilities to ensure that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were eliminated. That is an absolutely wrong construction.

It completely ignores the facts which was that peaceful disarmament of Iraq was underway. That was absolutely the basis of the detailed report from the weapons inspector, Dr. Hans Blix, a distinguished international diplomat, really a servant of the world, someone respected for his competence and his integrity. He made it absolutely clear to the Security Council members and to the people of the world looking on that peaceful disarmament was in fact happening, but not at the accelerated rate that we would have wished. He also made it clear that it was the intention of the weapons inspectors to step up the pace of the disarmament process and to become even more focussed and rigid about the meeting of specific requirements and specific deadlines.

What the Alliance is conveniently choosing to ignore is that it is precisely the decision of the Bush administration to launch this illegal war which has brought that weapons inspection process to an end along with the orderly, peaceful disarmament which was happening. That goes to the heart of one of the very key reasons for our strenuous and profound difference in perspective with the Alliance that has put forward this motion.

In a very particular way I welcome the fact that we are today again debating this matter in the House of Commons.

Although I applaud the decision, as does my party, as do properly Canadians from coast to coast to coast who mobilized around urging the government to stand firm for peace, it is not adequate for the government to say that we will not participate and then say that we wish the Bush administration well in winning this war as quickly as possible, and let us get it over with. That is not a principled position nor does it live up to both the tradition and I think the desperate plea of peace loving people around the world and the peace building nations of the world for Canada to play a proactive role in the situation in which we now finds ourselves.

In addition to the position that we have very strongly advanced that Canada, if we are not to participate in this war, has to remove Canadian armed forces personnel from the war theatre, from the war arena. Nobody in their right mind believes that our armed forces personnel, whether it be the military exchange officers or personnel on our naval ships, will be able to remain uninvolved as non-participants in the war on Iraq that is now in high gear. That must be the reason why the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister have been totally unable to put forward coherent terms of engagement which would make it clear that is attainable. It may be the aspiration and it may be the intention, but I think in practical terms nobody actually believes that is possible.

When we bid farewell from Halifax port to naval ships that were headed for the Persian Gulf, that worried me a great deal and certainly worried the loved ones of those armed forces personnel, who now find themselves in the gulf or en route to the gulf, that this would result in Canada entering the war through the back door. That is the concern that rises and mounts as the government stubbornly refuses to address this crisis and bring our personnel home.

Let me turn very quickly, because I know the time is short, to the actual motion that is in front of us. It is the third reason for welcoming the fact that this debate is in the House today. It would be much hoped that additional members of the Alliance Party and also of the Conservative Party would rethink their position and have the courage to stand against this war. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca did and that showed a good deal of conviction and courage for him to do so. The member for Cumberland—Colchester, who has been so involved in trying to help build peace in the Middle East, also did. Let us see some other members from the Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Parties take the opportunity that is afforded to them by this debate to also take a principled stand against this war.

Looking at the motion, in the fourth paragraph of the motion it states

“[We] urge the government to commit itself to help the Iraqi people, including through humanitarian assistance, to build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbours”

This is disingenuous if I have ever seen anything disingenuous in my life. The reality is that testimony from experts representing the most respected humanitarian agencies around the world came before the foreign affairs committee, and that foreign affairs critic knows it, and said that it would be a humanitarian disaster of monumental proportions if the Bush attack on Iraq were allowed to proceed. Why? Because it would bring to an instant halt the oil for food program on which 16 million Iraqis are dependent for their daily nutrition and for their very survival and subsistence.

That is exactly what has happened: placing people who were already very vulnerable, who very much at risk in a severe crisis beyond what they have been facing for the last 12 years.

This is not a concern about something that might happen. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has said that a massive humanitarian crisis has already struck the residents of Basra. Food is non-existent, water is unavailable and electricity is not at hand. This was not an unanticipated consequence. This was an absolutely predictable consequence of the Bush administration leading the war in Iraq, urged by the Alliance Party and others unwilling to address the humanitarian crisis. Any resolution suggesting that that party is ever so concerned about the humanitarian crisis is disingenuous, if not downright hypocritical.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Stockwell Day Canadian Alliance Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Speaker, my question is in relation to a comment the member made regarding the disarmament process that is in contradiction to everything I have read from Dr. Blix who talks about his distress. He stated in some detail that they still have not accounted for large quantities of the components for VX gas, large quantities of manufactured toxins, thousands of gallons, quantities for the development of anthrax. He also talked about not being able to account for 6,500 chemical bombs. Not one nation has come out and said that Saddam Hussein was complying with UN resolution 1441.

Will the member table for our enlightenment the comment apparently attributed to Dr. Blix, and I will quote her, “that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq is well underway”. She has used that specific phrase on more than one occasion. It seems to be in contradiction to everything we have read and everything reported on this. Could we get a reference to the peaceful disarmament of Iraq being well underway?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I suppose we all have a certain amount of selective perception, but one thing is absolutely clear. Dr. Blix went before the Security Council and said that more time was needed. In fact, he very much indicated that the Iraqi government had gone from very little cooperation to more cooperation to, and his most recent description was, proactive cooperation. Finally, progress was being made.

If the member thinks he can persuade his own constituents or any other thinking person in the world that Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said, “Let it rip, let the bombs drop, that is the way to liberate the people of Iraq and free Iraq of weapons of mass destruction”, then I think the guy is living in Disneyland. There is not one shred of evidence that the chief weapons inspector was advocating that the war on Iraq should proceed. The Security Council members overwhelmingly were not persuaded of that view either. Arguments were made on both sides.

It is not clear that the total disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction was going to keep right on the schedule that the Blix weapons inspectors were in the process of laying out, but it is absolutely clear that they pleaded for that process to continue because as he said, peaceful disarmament is not only possible, it is happening.

It is a tragedy that the process was not permitted to continue because what we see instead is a beginning toll on human life of armed forces personnel on both sides, but most tragically of all, innocent civilians of all ages in a situation not of their making.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member for Okanagan--Coquihalla made much of the coalition of the willing, the 30 countries that support the U.S. and U.K. attack on Iraq which includes Albania, Colombia, Nicaragua and Turkey. I noticed that 160 countries are not on this list. Two absentees are Kuwait and Qatar which are the very bases that are being used by the Americans and the British to attack Iraq and yet they are not part of the coalition of the willing. Are they possibly the coalition of the unwilling?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has underscored the point I was making earlier, that if ever there were a euphemism that did not stand up to scrutiny, it is the notion of the coalition of the willing. We know that many of those countries either have not signed on for fear of retaliation, or have been coerced into signing on because they knew perfectly well that they were highly vulnerable to the backlash of the Bush administration.

I want to take the opportunity to say very briefly that I am extremely adamant that we take the opportunity to say at every turn in the House that this is not about anti-Americanism in any sense of the word. There are a massive number of Americans who stand with us for peace. Let me say briefly that in my riding last weekend we--

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that the thought about anti-Americanism is taking a strong stand against George Bush and his illegal war, as a matter of fact, just before the war broke out, there was Gallup poll done in the United States. The Gallup poll done in the United States on March 17, said that if the United States went forward with military action without United Nations approval, half the Americans would be opposed to the invasion of Iraq and 47% would be in favour of it. Even in the United States of America a lot of people are opposed to what is going on in Iraq today.

I want to say very clearly that I am shocked at the Alliance Party. It wants to send the young men and women of Canada into a theatre of war, an illegal war that has been inducted by George Bush that violates the international law. That is absolutely disgusting and shameful. It is an illegal war that has a small minority of Canadian people supporting it. The Alliance Party is supposed to be a grassroots party reflecting public opinion in this country. I say shame on the Canadian Alliance. The more Canadian people know about the Alliance, it is no wonder it is now in fifth place in the polls.

The war is illegal. The war is immoral. George Bush is dead wrong in what he is doing. I also say that Tony Blair is wrong. If it was not for Tony Blair lending the support of Great Britain, George Bush would not have the support at home to conduct a war. That is the cover that George Bush needs, the credibility of Great Britain, in terms of conducting the war that is wrong, illegal and immoral, that will kill tens thousands of innocent people in Iraq.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

An hon. member

Nonsense.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Nonsense? There are 15 million people in Iraq who are surviving because of food from the United Nations. There are people now in Basra who are suffering because of the lack of food and the lack of water.

There are these moralizers on the other side who are taking a stand against the Pope and against the churches, against all the Christian values in the world. These moralizers on the other side are taking a stand against all kinds of reasonable people. In fact even Henry Kissinger, that famous Republican, has said that this war is illegal, that this war is a violation of international law. He was the chief Republican adviser to the president of the United States for a long time. Yet these Neanderthals get up in the House and say to commit young Canadian men and women into the theatre of war. I find that absolutely disgusting.

Then they try to distort the position of certain political parties. I had it reported to me that the foreign affairs critic for the Alliance made a comment that the CCF was against World War II just because one person, the leader of the party, J.S. Woodsworth, who was a pacifist like Gandhi, was the only member of the House of Commons who got up and voted against the war. I remember Tommy Douglas saying to me that Woodsworth had difficulty reading notes and he would pass him his notes to make his speech at that time as he stated his position. The CCF caucus and council took a strong stand in terms of committing our country to war. I had an uncle who was killed in Normandy in that war.

There is a kind of distortion and misinformation that goes on by the Alliance. I find that to be absolutely offensive from the party across the way.

The global public opinion is overwhelmingly against what George Bush and Tony Blair are doing in Iraq. People in our country are opposed to what they are doing in Iraq. There have been large demonstrations weekend after weekend. They are growing in number right around the world. I am very proud to be part of that movement. We will do whatever we can to make sure that does not happen.

We could go to any riding in this country and we would find that people are increasingly opposed to this illegal war by George Bush, this illegal action, a violation of the United Nations.

I wish the people in the Alliance Party would take this seriously. Here they are condoning something that violates international law. The so-called party of law and order. The so-called party of grassroots Canadians. The so-called party of Christian values in the House of Commons. This is what the Alliance is doing. People should be aware exactly where that party stands, in opposition to what it said historically. I say that already there are innocent civilians who are dying.

I am probably one of the few members in the House of Commons who has been in a war zone and has seen people die. When I was 22 years old, in 1960, I volunteered to go into the Biafran civil war. I spent a week inside the war zone. I saw people dying of starvation. I saw little kids who were dying of starvation. I saw people who were shot, who were wounded and whose limbs were blown off because of bombs.

I was driving a small convoy of cars late one night near a little airstrip when we were caught in a bombing raid. I saw the terror and the fear and I know the terror and the fear when bombs are dropping beside us. When the bombs started to drop we jumped out of the cars and dived into the jungle brush. People all around were crying. Some people were saying the rosary. People were praying. People were terrified. That is what is happening in Iraq today.

I saw kids in big feeding centres at sunrise in the Biafran jungle who were dying of kwashiorkor, the protein deficiency disease. I saw kids who died because of a lack of food. Food supplies were cut off because of a war that was being carried on. This is what is happening in Iraq today. To have a political party in our country advocate being part of that theatre of war, being part of that suffering that is going on, I find absolutely disgusting.

I do not think many people realize the suffering that goes on. I remember being there, hearing little kids cry, seeing people terrified and seeing people who were walking skeletons. I remember someone coming out of the bush in Biafra carrying a little child who was barely alive and who was basically a skeleton because of a lack of food and water.

I remember going up to the front after dark one night in that war to see what happened. I saw the terror on the Biafran side when they fired into the jungle because they heard the noise of machine gun fire on the other side. We took back with us in a jeep that night a wounded soldier who had bullets in his hands and arms that had come from the other side.

This is what happens in a war. People do not seem to realize that. It is not like sitting at home and watching some kind of video game on CNN. These things are bloody awful. We saw yesterday the American prisoners of war who were taken by the Iraqis. We saw how awful that was. We saw how awful it was to see the Americans, with Iraqi prisoners of war behind barbed wire, kneeling down with machine guns pointed at them. This is the reality of war.

Here we have the Alliance across the way once again ignoring their constituents, ignoring the Canadian people, ignoring public opinion, ignoring what the churches are saying, ignoring what international law experts are saying and ignoring what the United Nations are saying. I say thank God for Jacques Chirac. Thank God for France, Germany, Scandinavia and for the majority of people in this country, the majority of people in this world, who have taken a very strong stand against an immoral war. Yet we have the Alliance taking the exact opposite position.

Jacques Chirac and France represent global public opinion. Chancellor Schroeder in Germany represents public opinion. The Scandinavian countries represent public opinion. The Dutch and the Belgians represent public opinion in the world and also in their countries. This is what this war is really all about.

I wanted to say to the House today that I am pleased that our country is not involved but I am concerned that we do have some people on an exchange program who are now in the theatre of war. I believe those people should be pulled out of that exchange at this time. I am also concerned that we have Canadian ships escorting ships of war. I believe they should be pulled out of the region as well.

A time comes when we have to stand up for what is right, for being on the side of international law, not on the side of someone who is violating international law. We have to stand up for people in our constituencies, stand up for the people in this country and stand up for global public opinion. Being on the same side as Norman Schwarzkopf, Henry Kissinger, the Pope, the World Council of Churches and public opinion is not a bad thing. I am proud that I stand with all those folks.