Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member, we cannot get into the whole Middle East debate and we obviously should have a debate on that, but I do want to address specifically tonight the issue of the situation in Iraq.
I have attempted to follow as much of this debate as possible over the last two nights. There have been some legitimate concerns raised about the actions, the possible actions and the possible consequences as a result of any action against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Tonight I will attempt to deal with some of those concerns.
The first legitimate concern which has been raised is whether an attack on Iraq will create a worse situation than there is right now in Iraq itself and in the region as a whole. This is obviously a legitimate concern. The Middle East as a whole is not a stable region. Israel and Palestine were mentioned, obviously Afghanistan as well. Saudi Arabia is another regime that has been mentioned that is not completely stable.
An attack on Iraq certainly could destabilize the region further and we have to recognize that possibility. However there are two points I would make to address this concern.
First, the threat of Saddam Hussein obviously has to prove to be more dangerous than the possible negative consequences to justify any action, including military, against him.
Second, the nations that may launch an attack against his regime must be prepared to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and work with the Iraqi people to ensure societal and institutional stability. This is absolutely crucial to achieve long term peace and we must hold our allies to this responsibility.
We in Canada should also shoulder our burden as a nation and be prepared to assist where we can. Canada is quite well suited to assist in this type of endeavour. With our forces so stretched in terms of any possible military action, it is unlikely we would take part. In terms of any post attack situation, we certainly could play a very relevant role.
The second concern I heard raised was whether an attack on Iraq would distract from the war on terrorism and the rebuilding of Afghanistan and whether it would cause even more terrorist attacks such as the one on September 11. This is obviously a very serious concern as well.
There is much work to be done in completing the war on terrorism such as the search for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda operatives. There is also a tremendous amount of effort that must be expended in rebuilding Afghanistan. It is not an oil rich country like others in the region and it needs what could be compared to a Marshall plan to help rebuild its economy.
We also need to build a regime in which the Afghani people can expect to better their lives. We do not know whether there are any people like Konrad Adenauer in Afghan or in Iraq who can shoulder this responsibility as that individual did in Germany post-World War II, which is why we should be prepared to assist in that endeavour.
Obviously any military action would put a strain on the resources particularly of the United Kingdom and the United States, but it is one that both leaders of those nations have said they are willing to bear.
In terms of the issue of more terrorist attacks, that is a serious concern as well. The fact is that we must make an intelligent guess on that. World leaders must ask if Saddam Hussein will make an attack if they do not make a pre-emptive strike against him. That must be the position if we are to have any sort of military action against a country.
That leads me into the next concern, which is whether there is justification for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. Obviously we would like to deal with this through the United Nations, and the right to take pre-emptive military action must be narrow and well justified. It should require a high level of evidence that a rogue state, which has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, is on the verge of developing them. Iraq certainly qualifies as a rogue state and it has used weapons of mass destruction in the past against two of its neighbours and certainly against its own people, the Kurds.
The question is what Iraq's capability is now. The Prime Minister of England has produced a document to substantiate many concerns. CSIS in our country and President Bush have produced some. The problem with assessing the evidence that might establish the justification for a pre-emptive attack against Iraq is that by its nature the best evidence is likely to be classified. It will generally come from spy satellites and from any spies on the ground.
An administration trying to garner support for an invasion will have to strike a balance between protecting its intelligence sources and making its case to the public. This makes it difficult for informed citizens and parliamentarians to decide how strong a case for pre-emptive action actually is without knowing everything that the U.S. administration knows. Unfortunately that is virtually impossible.
We are being told that Iraq is buying thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes capable of being used as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. It is developing a capacity to use drone aircraft to spray chemical and biological agents. It is expanding its efforts to enlist terrorists and carriers of weapons of mass destruction.
From these facts we can discern three conclusions. First, Iraq is determined to develop nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them; second, Iraq may not yet have that capacity; and thirdly, and perhaps the most crucial conclusion, how much time do we have before these nuclear weapons become operational and is it enough to warrant further efforts short of attacks, such as UN weapons inspection?
We have supported those intermediary steps to this point. We have applauded the President of the United States for going to the UN and seeking resolutions through the UN Security Council. That is what we think should be done. The U.S. always acts best when it acts as part of a multilateral force and we support those efforts.
The Bush administration has argued that if the UN does not act tough enough, or if Iraq does not comply with the sanctions, then it will certainly act. This means that the stakes are high and the facts are uncertain. In the age of conventional warfare, the presumption might well favour waiting and we would prefer to wait. But after September 11, and if waiting realistically increases the risk that we or our allies may be exposed to nuclear, biological or chemical attack by Iraq or Iraqi-sponsored terrorists, then the presumption may well favour immediate preventive action, especially if it can be taken so as to minimize civilian casualties.
Whatever course we pursue we may turn out to be wrong. The real question for us as parliamentarians is: would it be worse to err on the side of action that turns out to be unnecessary, or of inaction that exposes us to preventable devastation?
The fourth issue related to this is asks whether the U.S. or its allies, including the United Kingdom, have a right to try to effect regime change in another country? That is regime change as opposed to just trying to deter Saddam from amassing and deploying weapons of mass destruction. Obviously it would be better, everyone agrees, if we assume that Saddam Hussein could simply be deterred, if he could be convinced through a forceful resolution and enforcement by the United Nations to end his program of developing weapons of mass destruction.
We favour the UN Security Council passing a strong resolution to send in its weapons inspectors and have them, first, determine the extent of Saddam's weapons programs, and second, dismantle those programs. If this is not accomplished, and if Saddam continues to delay and deny, then there will need to be a stronger response from the United Nations. If the UN fails to act, then the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and others will act. They have said so. If those conditions all occur, then Canada should support these allies in that situation.
There must be consequences to the fact of Saddam not obeying UN resolutions or the UN not following through on its own resolutions. We in the official opposition hope that conflict and the loss of human life can be avoided, but we must also be prepared to support our allies, the U.S., the U.K., Australia and others, in sending a clear signal to Saddam Hussein that we will not stand by while he develops weapons of mass destruction. He must hear this signal loud and clear and, in order for him to understand it, it must be clear that we are prepared to use force if necessary.
One indubitable truth from human history is that the imperialistic tendencies of tyrants must be met by strength and resistance. Otherwise they will expand and they will use weapons of terror. That is evident throughout human history.
The world really changed after September 11 and we must recognize the uniqueness of that terrorist attack. It was even different from other terrorist attacks. It was not a group of terrorists taking a plane of hostages and saying to do this or else they will not release the hostages. It was a pre-emptive terrorist attack in which the people in those buildings and the leaders of that nation had no opportunity to do anything to prevent that attack.
That must be repeated and understood over and over. It was a unique terrorist attack because it was pre-emptive. There was no opportunity for the U.S. to respond in any way before it had its symbol of industrial strength, the World Trade Center, and its symbol of military power, the Pentagon, attacked. A third plane was headed for either the White House or Congress. Those pre-emptive strikes must be considered acts of war. They have changed the whole nature of human history. We must realize that we are in a post-September 11 world. Nobody wants war. No one wants the destruction of human life, and I think that is clear.
I happened to be in Washington on September 11, 2002, and there was a strong debate going on. The national security advisor was on the radio and Americans were phoning in debating and deliberating both sides of the Iraq issue. They wanted to know whether they should send their sons and daughters off to war.
Some of the comments from the other side of this House about American society were disappointing. It is a fruitful democracy in which this kind of debate and deliberation takes place. We must recognize that the character of that democracy as well as the character of other democracies is completely inequivalent to the character of the regime under Saddam Hussein. Some of the moral equivalents between regimes of that type cannot be repeated. We must make a clear distinction of kind between those two.
Canada must stand with its allies in ensuring that Saddam Hussein understands that failure to comply to complete and total access by UN weapon inspectors will have--
