Lost his last election, in 2004, with 34% of the vote.
Supply March 24th, 2003
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.
Supply March 24th, 2003
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.
Supply March 24th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say it is with honour that I rise today to participate in the debate. Before I begin, I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my with the hon. Minister of Defence.
In regard to the issue of what Canada has done, let me be clear that Canada has in fact done its part. We have carried our share of the diplomatic burden. Over the course of the past 12 years, we have made every effort to support the inspections process. Importantly, Canada was instrumental in working toward the increased effectiveness of the sanctions regime.
During our tenure on the Security Council, from 1998 through 2000, we worked to make the sanctions regime more humane. During the very tense last few weeks, Canada worked around the clock to find a compromise that would unite the UN Security Council but, unfortunately, that was not possible. This despite the fact that we do not currently have a seat on the Security Council.
We wholeheartedly offered our support to the efforts of the United States and to the United Nations' inspections efforts to secure Iraqi compliance and to press for Iraq's disarmament. Unfortunately, no agreement was reached among the Security Council on a way forward.
Canada's position has always been that we would require the approval of the UN Security Council if we were to support military action in Iraq.
The United States, the United Kingdom and others have undertaken a coalition military action against Iraq. As we have made explicit, Canada will not be participating in the military campaign against Iraq. We have made this clear to our colleagues in the House. We have made it clear to the Canadian public. We have made it clear to our partners internationally. For us to support military action against Iraq, it would have been essential to have the endorsement of the UN Security Council.
We have held to this position from the beginning of the crisis. This position is consistent with the longstanding Canadian foreign policy of multilateral engagements, support for the United Nations system and a deeply held commitment to diplomatic process as a means, where possible, to averting conflict.
This policy reflects broad based Canadian values and it reflects the interests of the Canadian public, in terms of going to war as a last resort. It is to the Canadian public that we in the government and in the House are ultimately responsible.
Our American and British allies understand why we have taken the position we have. Our relationship with these two key allies will continue to flourish, despite this difference of opinion. We continue to consult closely on a broad range of foreign policy issues and we will certainly work together toward Iraq's recovery and reconstruction.
The United States and Canada have always worked closely together. We remain close allies. We are working together in the ongoing war against terrorism.
Our relations with the United States and the United Kingdom are too broad in scope and too important to be derailed by any one foreign policy decision, no matter how weighty.
We continue to work side by side with our friends and allies in the campaign to prevent and combat terrorism. This campaign will require our constant vigilance and effort. Canada remains committed to making an important contribution to this campaign, a fact that is recognized by the United States and all our allies. Canada has every intention of keeping our commitments now. Nothing will shake our resolve to continue these activities.
In support of the global campaign against terrorism, we have ships and planes stationed in the gulf.
In regard to where we are now, we recognize that only Saddam Hussein bears responsibility for the current situation in Iraq. We arrived at this dramatic point in history because of the ongoing intransigence of the Iraqi government. This government, for over 12 years, has failed to live up to its international obligations. It has disregarded repeated calls from the UN Security Council for co-operation and full disarmament.
We have long hoped that it would not come to this, that the crisis could be resolved without military action. However now that the war has begun, we can only hope that victory for our friends, the United States and the United Kingdom, will be quick, decisive and with as few casualties as possible.
It is with great sadness that we have learned of the first casualties of the war. We extend our deep condolences to the American and British friends who have suffered their first casualties and of course to the families of the fallen.
Our hearts go out to the Iraqi people who have suffered gravely over the course of the last two decades and who have now suffered their first casualties of this war. We hope against hope that casualties will be few and call upon all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law and to protect the civilian population.
The international community has a critical role to play in helping to meet the needs of Iraqi civilians. It is for this reason that Canada supports the UN's humanitarian preparedness and provided some $5.6 million to support its activities. It is also why we are urgently reviewing options for responding to the requirements which have emerged since the conflict began.
The Government of Canada will continue to uphold its internationally recognized humanitarian tradition of seeking to provide protection and assistance to those in need. In this respect, through our diplomatic efforts we will continue to encourage the countries neighbouring Iraq to facilitate the work of international aid agencies and to ensure access is provided for Iraqi refugee and asylum seekers who may be seeking protection.
We will, likewise, continue to strongly support efforts to ensure that there are minimal disruptions in the delivery of food and other humanitarian goods within Iraq, including those which have been delivered under the oil for food program.
It is critical that the Security Council reach an early decision on how to adjust this important mechanism so that it can be effectively tapped to meet the new and emerging needs of the Iraqi people.
We also are committed to reconstruction. We in the international community must be committed to the people of Iraq once hostilities have ceased. We need in turn to consider what we may do to help to lay the groundwork for a more stable, a more just and a more prosperous future for the people of Iraq. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that violence does not propagate itself and that the rule of law takes hold, that human rights are promoted and protected and that the Iraqi people are enabled to determine their own peaceful course forward.
This will be no simple task after over a quarter century of tyrannical rule. The reconstruction of Iraq will be a significant undertaking and an important responsibility for the international community. This process should be driven by the needs of the Iraqi people.
The United Nations has a key and essential role to play. It will be important very early on for UN agencies, alongside non-governmental organizations, to provide for basic humanitarian aid, protection, clean water, sanitation, food, shelter, medicines and so forth.
We are consulting closely with our international partners, including the United Nations, the United States and others regarding the involvement of the international community in Iraq. In the aftermath of the conflict we hope that the UN will be able to work with coalition members, international partners and the Iraqi people to redevelop Iraq's capacity to govern.
It is time for the international community to come together. For the sake of the Iraqi people it is time for the members of the Security Council to put their differences aside and to work to endorse the resolutions which will be key.
As an immediate priority, it will be important to find ways to ensure the continuation of the oil for food program on which 16 million Iraqis rely as their sole source of food. It will also be important for the Security Council to allow for some transitional arrangement which could provide a framework for the reconstruction and recovery of Iraq.
The Prime Minister has indicated Canada's willingness to participate actively in multilateral reconstruction efforts. It goes without saying that the extent and nature of our assistance will depend on the situation on the ground and the needs of the Iraqi people. We have a long and proud tradition of assistance in post-conflict situations as peacekeepers, as civilian police, as humanitarian workers, as non-governmental organizations and as civilian experts. It is a tradition for which we are renowned the world over and a field in which Canadians have experience and expertise that can be brought to bear.
However our responsibilities do not end here. They extend beyond this particular point in history and this particular crisis. In the weeks, months and years ahead we will have to redouble our efforts to prevent terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We will continue to support and strengthen international and multilateral institutions. These responsibilities go beyond any crisis or region and they will remain critical elements of Canada's foreign policy in the years ahead.
For now we must hope that the Iraq campaign is over quickly and successfully for our allies and with a minimum of casualties on both sides. Throughout, we must work to address the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and hope that a better future lies ahead for them.
Situation in Iraq March 17th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it is with honour that I rise this evening to speak on behalf of the Government of Canada. Before I begin I would like to advise the Chair that I plan on splitting my time with the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.
As the Prime Minister said earlier today, Canada has worked very hard to secure a peaceful resolution of the Iraq crisis and bridge the differences with the international community. Regrettably, the members of the Security Council were unable to agree on a way ahead.
The Canadian position has been clear from the outset, our commitment to the disarmament of Iraq and our support for the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 have been unwaivering.
We recognize the importance of the pressure that the United States and the United Kingdom forces have brought to bear in supporting the work of the United Nations inspectors in the region. Moreover we have been consistently clear that if military action proceeds without the clear authorization of the UN Security Council, Canada would be unable to participate.
We will continue to work with our friends and closest allies, the United States of America, throughout the campaign against terrorism, in particular in Operation Enduring Freedom.
Although the Security Council has not been able to resolve its differences over the interpretation of 1441, its members remain united in their shared goal of the disarmament of Iraq. This too has been Canada's goal since the outset. It has been incumbent upon us all to put in every effort to find a peaceful diplomatic course forward toward Iraqi disarmament. The disarmament of Iraq remains the shared objective of the entire world community, even if there remain differences among countries on the Security Council as to how best to achieve this end.
In meetings and many phone calls over the past few months, the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs have emphasized the need for Iraqi co-operation with the UN and for unity with the UNSC in its dealings with Iraq. We have repeatedly emphasized the need for a strong message from the United Nations Security Council to Iraq, pressing for Iraq's disarmament, supported by a united Security Council. Over the past few weeks we have worked hard to support the efforts of the UNSC, even though we are not currently on the council. We offered ideas and constructive suggestions to bridge the differences of views in the council over the interpretation of 1441.
We regret the council has not been able to resolve its differences of views. The UN Security Council is the only institution that may have been capable of ensuring a peaceful diplomatic solution to the Iraqi crisis.
The current crisis in Iraq is not the last crisis that the international community will need to confront. The UN, and specifically the Security Council, must remain central to the international community's efforts to rebuild Iraq as well as any future crises we may face.
Whatever happens in the next few days, we remain committed to the UN system as the best vehicle for addressing threats to international peace and security and for helping to foster a better life for people around the world. I have been pleased to see millions of people around the world expressing their desire that the UN will be given every possible opportunity to resolve this crisis peacefully. It speaks volumes about the extent to which, at the start of the 21st century, people everywhere see the UN as an indispensable part of their world.
The days ahead however will be difficult. Our actions will continue to be guided by principles that have long been held by Canada and Canadians. These principles have stood the test of time. They work and they are as relevant today as they were the day the UN was formed. We know that working multilaterally has served Canadian values and interests well. Thus, we believe the UN must be central to any humanitarian response and post-conflict efforts.
We must now turn to look at how we, the international community through the UN, can help the Iraqi people in the days ahead, to deliver necessary humanitarian assistance to ensure that displaced persons can find protection should they need it and after a conflict to see Iraq on the path toward peace and stability.
We believe the UN must continue to play a central role throughout the crisis to deliver humanitarian assistance to the long suffering Iraqi people, seek to offer assistance and protection to refugees and internally displaced persons who may be forced to flee from their homes, support Iraq's reconstruction and help set the Iraqi people on a course toward peace and prosperity.
Canada already has contributed funds towards the UN's preparedness efforts for Iraq and we stand ready to respond to any new humanitarian needs which may arise. We know that nations of the world must work together if we are to build an enduring peace. Canada will play its role and the UN will be central to that effort.
Supply February 10th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I think our position is somewhat what the hon. member has stated. The Prime Minister has said in response to questions in the House, and I quote from memory, that while a second resolution is not legally necessary we think that resolution 1441 as it stands is enough and it would be preferable. The reason it would be preferable is that it would represent complete unity of purpose among the Security Council members and a stronger unifying force for the international community. So while we are not wedded to it, it is not something that we want to discount out of hand as not being necessary, because we think it would be preferable.
Supply February 10th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. When he says it is begging the question, the position of the government is that we do not want to prejudge what facts may or may not be in play some weeks or some months down the road. If we look at the experience to date, when the United Nations has failed to do its job Canada has taken a certain position. There is no evidence in play right now that the United Nations is failing to do its job. That is why we are quite confident in saying that we are committed to the UN process.
What we do not want to do is get into a situation where our actions would be interpreted as trying to get ahead of the United Nations, or that the march to war is somehow not dependent on the will of the international community but on how one country or one small group of countries views the situation.
We are committed to following through with the process that is in play with resolution 1441 and we are quite comfortable that this is the view of the majority of Canadians.
Supply February 10th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to inform the House of important developments and advise it of Canada's position on Iraq.
I will be dividing my time with the government House leader. Furthermore, I will leave the procedural items to be dealt with by the House leader.
Over the past month, the international community, including Canada, has been undertaking increasingly intense diplomatic efforts to urge Iraq to meet its international obligations. These efforts have one important goal: to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
The Government of Canada has played an important role in these diplomatic efforts. Our Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs have been in constant contact with their counterparts around the world. It is clear that there is widespread consensus among our friends and allies that Iraq must disarm.
While we might not share exactly the same perspective on how this is to be achieved, there is general agreement on the need to maintain international pressure on Saddam's regime until Iraq fulfills its international obligations.
In the international community there is strong support for the United Nations process. We all recognize that the United Nations is the primary international organization responsible for peace and security. Canada continues to see the solution to the Iraq crisis based in resolution 1441 and through the UN Security Council.
The United Nations possesses the authority and is obliged to deal with this issue. That is why we will continue to urge our friends and allies that together we must pursue diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq through this forum. This is the fundamental basis for our policy on Iraq.
With resolution 1441, the international community sent a clear message to the Iraqi regime. To ensure the pacific resolution of this situation, Iraq must cooperate fully, actively and unconditionally with the weapons inspectors.
Resolution 1441 gave the Government of Iraq one final chance to comply and it set out a detailed road map for doing so peacefully. Unfortunately the current reality is that Iraq continues to avoid complying fully with UN resolution 1441. As Dr. Blix made clear during his update to the Security Council on January 27, Iraq has not co-operated fully and actively with the weapons inspectors as required.
United States Secretary of State Powell's presentation to the Security Council on February 5 put forward important factual information that added to the long list of outstanding questions regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. His presentation reinforced the concerns expressed by Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei in their reports of January 27.
This past weekend, Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei returned to Baghdad to meet with Iraq officials and to make clear to them once again that the onus is on Iraq to fill in the gaps and actively co-operate to provide the answers, information and co-operation required.
They will report back to the Security Council on February 14. This will be another important milestone in this process. Their findings will be invaluable to Security Council members as they consider the most appropriate way to proceed. The inspectors and the international community must see a concrete change in behaviour, from evasion to disclosure. Piecemeal co-operation is not enough and promises are not sufficient.
Clearly this process cannot be extended indefinitely. Inspections are not an open-ended process, and diplomatic pressure is increasing, but war is not inevitable if Iraq complies with the letter and the spirit of resolution 1441. The clear statement in resolution 1441 that there will be “serious consequences” has focused us all on the need for Iraq to co-operate. This credible threat of serious consequences from the international community has been essential to supporting the diplomatic effort to disarm Iraq.
Already resolution 1441 has made Iraq's obligations clear. It has permitted the return of the inspectors to Iraq and it has provided the necessary focus to get the job done. It sets out a detailed process for the council to receive reports and to consider appropriate actions, as well as the serious consequences of further non-compliance.
The first critical step is to cooperate fully, actively and openly with the international community in the disarmament process in resolution 1441.
It is up to the leadership of Iraq to do so and, in so doing, to bring their country in line with its international obligations for the good of its people as well as for the peace and security of the international community.
Canada's consistent policy on Iraq has served us well in terms of events and developments, from the passage of resolution 1441 to the reports of Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei to the council, to Colin Powell's case to that body on February 5 and to any possible second resolution on Iraq, the consistent thread is the UN process and the need for the international community to express its concerns through that body.
Not everyone fully agrees with the Government of Canada's approach on this issue, yet I would suggest to the House that the results are there. The U.S.A. has stayed within the UN process and the inspectors are doing their work in Iraq under its mandate. Should it be found that Iraq is unwilling to comply and co-operate with inspectors in its disarmament, then Canada will again look to the Security Council to consider next steps.
There was much compelling debate last week in the House and there is much discussion now of the possibility of a second resolution. It is ultimately up to the Security Council to determine whether it needs a second resolution. If there is a need to state clearly and unequivocally once again to Iraq the will of the international community, Canada would support such an approach.
The motion before the House, that we consider the sending of troops to Iraq by the government only after the Security Council has passed a resolution explicitly authorizing a military intervention, would unduly restrict the government's ability to respond to an extremely fluid and complex international situation. A great majority of Canadians agree with our fundamental position: The disarmament of Iraq by peaceful means is best achieved through the UN.
Canada continues to be actively engaged with its partners around the world in finding a solution to this rapidly evolving situation. We are in constant dialogue with the United States, other Security Council members and countries of Europe and the region. As I said earlier, war is not inevitable. We must do everything possible to achieve the peaceful disarmament of Iraq.
Supply February 10th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is too great a divide between the member's party and the government. However on the point about whether a second resolution is absolutely mandatory, I would point out that in the past the United Nations has not always done its job.
Could the member comment on the situation in Kosovo where there was a veto but the international community, through the work of NATO, decided to go ahead and launch military action? Does the member think that was a mistake?
Iraq January 29th, 2003
Madam Chairman, the hon. member made reference to a policy of appeasement and surely to goodness I do not think anybody would suggest that anybody's policy on Iraq these days is one of appeasement. There are UN inspectors there, they are on the ground, and they are doing their job.
My relatively narrow question to the member is, if Dr. Blix on February 14 delivers his report indicating that more time is needed to continue, what would the member's views be on the appropriateness of military intervention at that point?
Iraq January 29th, 2003
Madam Chairman, I understand the position of the Canadian Alliance. It is not an unreasoned position, but it is not one that the government is taking.
Canada should commit itself to being part of the coalition to increase the magnitude of the force allied against Saddam Hussein and therefore increase the likelihood that he will comply with the UN issued request to disarm.
Is there some point where a massive build up of force would have the opposite effect, that it would say to Saddam Hussein that the decision has already been made to go? If Saddam Hussein was rational and thought the decision had already been made to intervene and that war was inevitable, would it have the opposite effect? If he had weapons of mass destruction, rather than give them up believing that the decision had already been made, would he keep them with the idea that he would use them in a war?