Debates of Feb. 9th, 1998

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to speak on this group of motions.

Group No. 5 deals with the auditor general and an information officer being involved in the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have had these types of mornings when you wake up and feel that everything is going to go your way. As soon as you have had your breakfast, it does not start to happen.

About three years ago I introduced a private members' bill that would put the Canadian Wheat Board under the authority of the auditor general. It was not a votable bill but we did debate it for a while in the House. As I remember, every Liberal member in the House at that time was against that bill. They did not want to have the wheat board audited by the auditor general.

This morning when I picked up the Ottawa paper, I saw that the auditor general had said he hoped that he would be named auditor for the Canadian Wheat Board so that he could, under Bill C-4, work with the reform of the wheat board. That is exactly what I said four years ago. That is what should have happened. That would have put accountability into the wheat board and would have put some kind of trust back into this organization.

A lot of my comments on the wheat board and what I think should have happened to the wheat board have been heard. I would like to read a few quotes from somebody who is not involved in the farming industry, but is a free lance writer in Calgary, George Koch. I hope some people have picked up the article and read it. This is what he says:

Farmers have no way of knowing whether the wheat board is doing its job because it operates in secret. And they have no other recourse—such as a mediator or an ombudsman—against apparently incompetent, abusive or fraudulent actions.

Nor, unlike nearly any other participant in aq modern market economy, do farmers have access to competing services-providers.

That is what farmers want. They want a choice.

Those who skirt the wheat board illegally are taken down by the armed men in black, clapped in irons and charged with offences punishable by imprisonment.

This is what farmers object to. They want the same type of treatment as other farmers in other sections of this country, the same treatment as in Ontario where they run their own board. He then goes on to say:

This has happened to more than 100 farmers so far. Clayton Desrochers, a young farmer in Baldur, Manitoba, who exported his grain in defiance of the wheat board, recently spent his birthday in jail. Brian White, the wheat board's director of marketing, describes people like Mr. Desrochers as `sort of those free men from Montana”'.

Can you imagine the wheat board making comments like that to a farmer who is trying to save his farm? This young man wanted to earn a couple of extra dollars because he could get twice the price for that barley that he was marketing in the U.S. than what the wheat board was willing to pay him. Why would a gentleman lose his farm and go on welfare instead of getting a better price for it?

This gentleman goes on to say:

The wheat board has been called many things: secretive, unaccountable, arrogant, ruthless and incompetent. But the Manitoba case goes to the crux of the matter. If the wheat board does not, in its own mind and in any meaningful sense, represent the interests of farmers and cannot be compelled to do so, why does it exist?”

Why do we have a wheat board if it is not going to represent farmers? Farmers in the last while have thought that maybe the court was the direction that they should go to try to get some fair play into this system, to probably represent their interests and to make the government and the wheat board change their attitude toward farmers.

I was astounded today in the House when, during question period, I heard the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans say in front of this House that the ruling in B.C. on the native fishing industry would not pertain to this House, they would not go by the judgement of the judge or the court, that did not affect this House. How can that be? Is this House above the law of this country? It is astounding.

I just want to read to the hon. members a paragraph out of a paper by Professor Peter Hogg, Q.C.. In his paper he says “Government Liability Assimilating Crown and Subject” says “It has always been a basic assumption of Anglo-Canadian public law that the Crown, that is the government, is subject to the same laws as everyone else. This was a principal element of Dicey's Rule of Law. It reflected a political theory that government ought to be under the law and not just under any law, but the same law that applies to the ordinary citizen. A special regime of law for government can lead to tyranny.' This is exactly what we are experiencing.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member took out of context what was said by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans today. Clearly what the minister said was that there—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is certainly not a point of order.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I have misinterpreted the minister, I wish the government would explain itself. When a government or an individual does not abide by the rulings of the court, I think they say they are not subject to the law. That is what is so serious about this statement in the House. I know there are about a hundred court cases right now.

If it should be ruled that these farmers are innocent, the government can just go out and say “Hey, we do not abide by that law. You will still be imprisoned. You will still not be able to market your grain.” What is going on here? This is a democracy.

In the amendments to this bill made by the hon. member for Prince George, B.C., he has tried to make this bill accountable by saying that the wheat board should operate under the auspices of the auditor general and the information act and that they should be able to have an input into how this bill or this act is run. That would make farmers happy. That would make the farmers put their trust back into this wheat board. The majority of farmers want that option. They want to have the option to market their grain at the best price that is available.

If that is not feasible in this bill, I think it will become more divisive and there will be more farmers going against the wheat board. It will probably destroy itself. When I about four years ago did my first press conference, I said that my farmers came with the complaints that they had against the wheat board.

All they wanted was for the government or some agency to look into those allegations to see whether they were right or wrong. They did not want to get rid of the wheat board, they wanted the wheat board to be made accountable.

I asked the solicitor general to do it and members know what happened with that. The farmers laid complaints with the local RCMP. Their complaints were stopped further up the line for some reason or other.

They had evidence that they had been deducted freight and elevation and cleaning charges on their grain to Thunder Bay when it never went to Thunder Bay. It just went right across the border about 10 miles into the U.S.

Not only that, but now we find out not only were they originally charged, they were also charged on the buy-back, again freight to Thunder Bay and cleaning and elevation charges. Those farmers have actually lost $40 a tonne on their grain which is over $1 a bushel.

That is why we, as the Reform Party, want to make the wheat board accountable. We do not want to destroy the wheat board, but we want to make it accountable and answerable to the farmers.

What is wrong with electing 15 directors instead of 10? What is wrong with the farmers being allowed to hire their own CEO and have that board run the way they like it? What is wrong with that? Is that not the way a democracy is supposed to run?

It scares the daylights out of me when I see one part of our industry being subjected to this type of treatment. They do not have the recourse that other industries have.

Some of the automotive dealers in my constituency said “Jake, if you don't stop this nonsense that farmers can't sell their grain for the best price, we're going to start objecting to this issue. If I could not sell my vehicles for the best price or if I could not take in a car in trade that somebody else wanted to get rid of, we would not abide by the law. We would be taking civil disobedience.”

We do not want to see that. We want to have an accountable, democratic system in this country that treats everybody fairly. That is all that farmers in western Canada want. They want to be efficient. They want to be accountable. They want to pay their taxes. They want to have a livelihood that puts food on their table. They want to be treated fairly.

When we look at the efficiencies and the productivity of our agriculture industry, there are none that will come second to us in the world. They have done it under circumstances where they have not had the freedom to get the best price for their products.

What would they be able to accomplish if they had that opportunity to market their grain at the best price that was offered to them? What would they not be able to do when they had a wheat board that was accountable to them, that would look after their interests, that if there were objectionable things going on, if there were irregularities, somebody like the auditor general would look into it.

When I asked the auditor general four years ago to give me an idea how much interest was charged on the debt that taxpayers were probably servicing, he could not do that.

There was no way that he could access the books of the Canadian Wheat Board to see what the interest was. What I found unbelievable when I talked to the auditor general and wanted to know why he could not access the bookssas that he did not know but that he could tell me one thing, that he still had to sign the audit of the Canadian Wheat Board as being correct. Even if he could not look into the books, his signature had to go on that document that it is accurate.

I can see why the auditor general would come out this morning and say that he wished he would be named auditor of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the direction to go. That is what the amendments in this piece of legislation say. I urge every member in this House to vote for the revamping of this wheat board with the auditor general and the information officer to be part of it.

[The Speaker]

A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been moved, pursuant to the order made earlier today.

Middle East

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we are doing something different in Canada. We are the only country which, before taking a decision on this matter, is consulting the House of Commons. In Great Britain the house was informed of the decision without debate. The same thing happened in other countries. There was no debate in the United States. In Canada we will have a debate tonight. I will listen to the views expressed in the House of Commons. I will report to cabinet tomorrow and a decision will be made.

Tonight we have come together to debate an issue of vital national and international importance. On such occasions the elected representatives of our people must be heard. People have to know where we stand. I look forward to hearing the views of my parliamentary colleagues. They will help us to make an informed decision.

I believe the responsibility of Canada tonight is solemn and sober. It is to show the strength of purpose of the international community and to stand firm in the face of provocation.

The government is adding Canada's voice to the international chorus calling for Saddam Hussein to comply fully with UN security council resolution 687 and all other security council resolutions passed with respect to Iraq since 1991. Iraq must do so or face very serious consequences.

Tonight I want to lay out clearly before the people of Canada why we believe their government should support military action if Saddam Hussein does not comply. This gives us no pleasure.

Canada is not a nation which rushes to embrace the use of force. We do not lightly endorse military action. For us it is always the last resort. Ours is a history of working to prevent conflicts and to promote peaceful resolutions when armed conflict does break out. Indeed, a diplomatic resolution is far and away our preferred resolution to this crisis.

At the same time Canada has never been just a bystander in the world. We have been an active citizen of the world and with citizenship comes responsibility.

On fundamental issues of peace and security we have never hesitated to take sides. Thousands of Canadians have died this century to prove that point. It is why we joined NATO. It is why we helped to draft and sign the universal declaration of human rights 50 years ago. It is why we helped to bring about an international treaty banning land mines just two months ago.

If there is one thing Canadians cannot abide, that is any flaunting of the clearly expressed wish of the United Nations Security Council. And if there is one question on which the Security Council has spoken out clearly, it is the threat Saddam Hussein represents to his neighbours, and the entire world, with his weapons of mass destruction, his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Given his past record, this can be of no surprise to anyone. What kind of leader would engage voluntarily in a reign of terror against his own people?

What civilized mission can be carried out with the massacre of tens of thousands of Kurds and the total destruction of entire villages? What logic was there in an invasion of Kuwait, if it brought down on his country the most powerful military alliance forged since the second world war?

What conclusion does this lead us to about the humanity of a man who is again prepared to expose his people to this risk, merely to protect the terrible activities he is involved in to develop chemical and biological weapons?

We do not, of course, have any guarantee that a strong and decisive intervention will put an end to the threat to international security Saddam represents. We can conclude from his past actions, however, that if we do not intervene, if we do not stand up to him, our inaction will encourage him to commit other atrocities, to prolong his reign of terror over his own people, his neighbours, and the entire world. There is no doubt about it.

Saddam's determination to develop and use weapons of mass destruction, chemical warfare in particular, is well documented. Anyone doubting the serious character of the threat this man represents has only to recall how he turned these weapons against his own people. Equally well documented are his ongoing efforts to block the work of UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission created to ensure compliance with Security Council Resolution 687.

The purpose of the resolution is clear, that Saddam must unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of his weapons of mass destruction. Economic sanctions against Iraq will remain in place until UNSCOM declares that he has done so.

This was a condition of the ceasefire that ended the gulf war. Saddam agreed in writing that UNSCOM would be given freedom of entry and access in its inspections. From the very outset he has failed to honour this agreement. The denial of access to so-called presidential sites is just the latest example.

At this point I would like to pay tribute to the incredible job which has been done by UNSCOM in the face of continued provocation. In these brave men and women, experts in their fields, Saddam has confronted determined adversaries. Through seven years of lies and physical threats they have carried out brilliant detective work. They have uncovered the truth that his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs were much further advanced than we feared or than Saddam will admit.

Thanks to UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Saddam's well funded and advanced nuclear weapons program is essentially no more. Thanks to UNSCOM all of Iraq's known chemical weapons and facilities have been destroyed. Thanks to UNSCOM all of Iraq's known facilities and equipment associated with biological weapons have been destroyed. UNSCOM has overseen the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons and 480,000 litres of live chemical agents. Anyone who doubts the seriousness of this threat should remember UNSCOM's discovery that Iraq has produced 8,400 litres of anthrax. One hundred kilograms of anthrax released from the top of a tall building in a densely populated area could kill millions of people.

Saddam's lies and deceit and especially his obstructions prevent the special commission from verifying whether Iraq has indeed destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction. The international community must have the assurance of the special commission, but it gives no credence to Saddam's promises.

For seven years he has lied, resisted and tried to hide the truth. He has had every opportunity to comply with international agreements and his obligations, but nothing has succeeded in getting him to comply voluntarily, not even the potential lifting of the economic sanctions that are hurting the people of Iraq. This deadly game of hide-and-seek has gone on long enough.

Let me say that the government still favours a diplomatic solution and, to this end, we are remaining in contact with our allies. Military intervention is not imminent. Make no mistake, Saddam's behaviour to date indicates that he will not honour diplomatic solutions so long as they are not accompanied by a threat of intervention. The least sign of weakness or hesitation on our part will be interpreted as incitement.

That is why, if it comes to that, we believe a military strike against Iraq would be justified to secure compliance with security council resolution 687 and all other security council resolutions concerning Iraq.

We believe that Canada cannot stand on the sidelines in such a moment. Our allies, led by the United States, have asked that we support such a mission. They have asked for military support, not for combat troops. However, it would mean a Canadian presence in the action against Saddam Hussein. It would mean our armed forces would support, in a material way, the actions of this multinational initiative. It would mean that when and if every other means fails and action is taken to enforce the will of the security council, Canada will be counted. Not on the sidelines. Not in isolation.

That is the decision we must make. I believe the choice is clear. I believe it is a choice dictated by the responsibilities of international citizenship, by the demands of international security and by an understanding of the history of the world in this century.

Tonight we will hear from members of all parties. Their views are important and will help guide the cabinet tomorrow in its decision.

Moments like this are never easy. They require deep commitment, honest evaluation and respect for all views, even those with which we do not agree. Important decisions are seldom easy. All we can hope is that we face them with the wisdom and understanding that they deserve and with the commitment to see them through.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by defining the issue before the House as the official opposition sees it. The issue is whether Canada should accept or reject the invitation by the United States to participate in possible military actions in the Middle East, actions to stop terrorism and the production of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.

The issue is not whether we support a maximum diplomatic effort to constrain Saddam Hussein. Every member of the House supports a maximum diplomatic effort. The issue is what to do if diplomatic efforts fail, whether then to participate in a military action.

I am sure we will find by the end of this evening the issue can be looked at from the political perspective. It can be looked at from the economic and military perspectives. But in all these considerations the official opposition wants to ensure that it is the human and moral dimensions that we keep uppermost in our minds.

If Saddam Hussein persists in the production of chemical and biological weapons and eventually uses them, the cost in terms of human life and suffering is incalculable.

The hon. member from Red Deer and others will dwell on this point a little later but let me mention just one chilling statistic. At the point when Saddam Hussein resumed his refusal to co-operate with the UN special commission, its inspectors were searching for 25 warheads armed with 40 gallons of toxins such as anthrax and botulinum, each of which can kill up to a million people.

If we have any doubts of Saddam Hussein's preparedness to use such weapons, as the prime minister has already said, we should remember that he used chemical and biological weapons against the Iranian forces in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. He used poison gas against his own people, the Kurds in the north, immediately after losing the gulf war.

There is no doubt about it in our mind. Leaving Saddam Hussein unchecked would exact an enormous toll in human suffering. At the same time, of course, military action to constrain Saddam Hussein will also exact a human toll.

It was observed in the House by then Prime Minister Mulroney during the 1991 debate that Saddam Hussein had demonstrated limitless tolerance for the suffering of his own people. He can be counted upon to use women and children as human shields to protect possible targets.

If military action is undertaken, the lives of military personnel themselves will be jeopardized. Canadian lives could be lost if it is the decision of parliament that Canada should participate militarily.

The human and moral side of the issue must be kept uppermost in our minds. I am personally convinced that the only moral justification for taking human life is if it can be demonstrated that the taking or sacrificing of some lives may save more lives than otherwise. I think that is the only moral justification for capital punishment. I think it is the only moral justification for taking lives through military action. That is really the moral issue with which we are dealing tonight.

Does the risk of loss of lives of innocent Iraqi civilians and the men and women of the armed forces of Canada and our allies outweigh the loss of lives on the part of innocent civilians and military people down the road if we do nothing?

I would be remiss if I did not frankly address the unsatisfactory form of the debate on the motion before us. For the debate to be meaningful and to provide real guidance to the people of Canada and the government, this is what should have happened.

First, we should have had a full briefing of all members of the House by the prime minister, by the foreign affairs minister and by the defence minister with an open question period to follow to get all the facts out on the table before conducting any debate.

This is simply common sense. You get all the facts out through cross-examination before you debate them. Why the rules and procedures of the House continue to defy simple common sense concepts like that is frankly beyond me.

Then you commence the debate. Not debate on a vague motion like the one before us, but a debate on a real position opposed by the government but subject to amendment by members of House and subject to a vote at the end of the day.

The prime minister excuses this lack of leadership by saying that he wants to consult first before putting forward a position. The more statesmanlike thing would be to put forward a position which represents the very best judgment of the government and then be willing to amend it or to change it on the basis of consultation and points made by members of the House.

In the absence of strong leadership from the government it falls upon members on this side of the House to fill the vacuum. We are calling upon members of all opposition parties to make a contribution, and I mean that sincerely.

Given the historic concern of the social democrats in the House about the human and social consequences of military action, we expect members of that persuasion to make a major contribution from that perspective.

Given the fact that the Progressive Conservatives were in power at the time of the last gulf conflict, we expect Conservative members to make a significant contribution by drawing upon that experience, what went right and what went wrong, and applying it to this situation.

As far as the official opposition is concerned, our principal contribution will be this. We have insisted in committee and in debate in the House since 1993 that parliament should be developing clear criteria to assist it in deciding how Canada should respond to requests for our participation in multilateral military operations to establish and maintain peace in the world. We raised this demand in relation to our participation in Bosnia and we raise it again tonight.

In our judgment there are at least six criteria which should be satisfied before Canada commits itself to responding to requests for participation in multilateral military initiatives to prevent and remove threats to peace.

First, parliament should be satisfied that there is a serious international threat and that diplomatic efforts to resolve it have failed.

In the case before us there is no question in our mind that Saddam Hussein and his weapons production capability constitute a serious international threat and that to date diplomatic efforts are not solving the problem, so this criterion is satisfied.

Second, parliament should be satisfied that so far as possible there is multinational support for military action.

In this case there is multinational support from our key allies, in particular the United States and the United Kingdom, so this criterion is satisfied.

Third, the government should be satisfied that there is a workable plan and strategy for military action to resolve the issue. We expect the government to assure parliament that there is such a plan and strategy. The government has not yet provided evidence along that line. We trust that it will do so before this evening is over. This criterion remains to be satisfied.

Fourth, parliament must be satisfied that any plan for military action includes a well defined mission and a clear definition of Canada's role. We expect the government to provide something on this mission definition tonight. It has not yet done so. Perhaps it will do so before the end of the evening. This criterion remains to be satisfied.

Fifth, parliament must be satisfied that the role expected of Canada is within our fiscal and military capabilities. We expect the government to give evidence along that line tonight. So far this criterion remains to be satisfied.

Sixth, parliament must be assured that there is a command and control structure satisfactory to Canada. Again we expect the government to provide some information on this structure. It has not yet done so. This criterion also remains to be satisfied.

Given that the seriousness of the threat is established and the need for action is clear, this is the advice of the official opposition to the government on this matter. There are five points.

(1) Canada has an obligation to support its allies in stopping terrorism by Saddam Hussein.

(2) Our support should be military as well as moral and political.

(3) The focus of any military action should be on putting Saddam Hussein's weapons factories out of business and allowing UN inspectors to do their work.

(4) As parliamentarians we should make the political decision to support. We should then let the defence department make the recommendations concerning the form and scope of our military support.

(5) It is important at the outset of these types of things to be clear on why one is doing what one is doing. The reason for supporting military action is that it is our moral obligation and in our national interest in stopping terrorism and the production of weapons of mass destruction.

In closing, I return to the point that for this debate to be meaningful it should end with a vote on a motion proposing the course of action. In that the government has failed to present such a motion, I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to revert to Government Orders and to continue to sit beyond the daily time of adjournment to consider an amendable and votable motion to read as follows:

That this House support diplomatic and if necessary military action by our allies to stop terrorism and the production of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member has asked for unanimous consent to put a motion. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to put the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

He does not have consent.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to know what to say in a debate on the advisability of taking part in an armed conflict. We would all wish it had not come to this.

A peaceful resolution through diplomatic means must always be everyone's objective. Quebeckers and Canadians can be proud of their historic contribution in this regard. Canada's tradition has always been to try to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts. The Canadian approach has always favoured diplomatic solutions to crises.

As proof, I would point to the interventions of Lester B. Pearson in the Suez crisis, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Price, and the numerous peacekeeping missions of the Canadian Armed Forces since 1990 in Bosnia and Haiti, as well as the Canadian presence in Egypt and Cyprus in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, the solution does not strike me as so obvious or straightforward in the case of Iraq. There could be a war on the horizon. Yesterday, the President of the United States called the Prime Minister to ask for Canada's support in its military operation against Iraq. A White House spokesman even said there was agreement that Canada and the United States should act together if force became necessary.

Here in Ottawa, a National Defence spokesman indicated that the Canadian army was getting ready for possible involvement with a view to providing logistical support to American forces.

It will be recalled that, after the Gulf War in 1991, the United Nations Security Council ordered Iraq to destroy all its chemical, bacterial and, if it had any, nuclear weapons. The international community obviously wants Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions imposed on that country, particularly resolution 687 regarding the elimination of all its weapons of mass destruction.

In our view, Iraq, with Saddam Hussein as its leader, still constitutes a potential threat to world peace, particularly if he is left with the capacity to manufacture or develop chemical or bacteriological weapons. Iraq's refusal to allow UN inspectors to do their job therefore threatens international security.

The international community, needless to say, is at the end of its tether with Iraq's lack of co-operation. The Americans and the British could therefore prepare to take military action against Iraq.

The issue for Quebec and Canadian parliamentarians in this House is not whether to support the UN resolutions or to condemn Iraq. It is, rather, how to apply the UN resolutions and put an end to the danger threatening the entire Middle East, if not the planet as a whole.

The Bloc continues to favour a diplomatic solution. We believe that not all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. These diplomatic efforts are favoured by France, Belgium, Italy and Russia at the moment.

All of the players in the international community are hoping for a diplomatic solution to this crisis. Canada must intervene not only with the United Nations, but also with NATO and with the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The government of Saddam Hussein must, however, give UN inspectors responsible for Iraqi disarmament unrestricted access to the 60-odd sites considered sensitive, which Baghdad is currently denying them.

Should the diplomatic efforts currently underway with Baghdad fail, we in the Bloc feel Canada must insist that the military strike against Iraq be approved by the UN security council.

Since the UN is carrying out its inspection and monitoring missions in Iraq under Security Council resolutions, if a diplomatic solution is unattainable, it would be desirable for that same body to be the one to authorize military action.

Before there is any military intervention in Iraq, we in the Bloc Quebecois believe a UN Security Council debate ought to be held. Generally, the UN Security Council's procedure for addressing problems of peace and security is a two-phase process.

First, if there is a threat to international peace, the UN Security Council can pass economic sanctions which all members are bound to apply. That is why there is an embargo against Iraq, and the lifting of those sanctions is linked to the unconditional destruction of all those chemical weapons.

Second, if the sanctions are not enough, then the Council can decide on military action, as it has done on two occasions, the Korean War in 1950 and the Gulf War in 1991.

All of the actions against Iraq, then, were taken in keeping with Security Council resolutions. We in the Bloc are of the opinion that we ought to do the same thing this time, because it is important that the greatest number of countries speak out in support of any intervention, any military intervention in particular. Such support carries indisputable moral weight. It is also the only way to get the Middle Eastern countries involved, the Arab countries in particular.

Let us think of the importance of Russian support. Russian President Boris Yeltsin delivered two stern warnings this past week to the effect that an American attack could set off a world war. Again this morning, President Yeltsin repeated his support for a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi crisis.

An American military offensive outside the UN framework could also result in strong Arab sympathy for Iraq. This is certainly not what we want to see happen. It is therefore important to ensure that the diplomatic process takes its course and that the Security Council debates the issue and is kept informed of any proposal for military intervention, which we do not reject out of hand.

Yesterday, US President Bill Clinton asked the Prime Minister for Canadian participation in a military operation against Iraq, such participation to be restricted to transportation and search and rescue teams. As far as we know, the United States has apparently not called for soldiers or fighter aircraft.>

Canadian military participation of an offensive nature seems out of the question for the time being. It is nonetheless participation in an armed intervention.

Throughout discussions about the crisis, Canada did not really show the leadership that was expected. Instead it took a wait-and-see approach. The Liberals are not keeping up the historic role that Canada played internationally, as I mentioned, in the time of Lester B. Pearson, and still plays, and that it played more recently through the initiative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs with respect to the land mines treaty.

Canada could have consulted its European allies in the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe and in NATO with a view to exploring various diplomatic solutions. Instead, the Canadian government decided to wait to hear from the Americans.

It seems to me that the Liberals must keep up the tradition that was established and maintained by Pearson and that inspired the more recent stand taken by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Today, the Prime Minister told us that he wanted to consult us before announcing Canada's position in this matter.

This was the approach and the sort of debate we had in recent years on the issue of Haiti, of Bosnia, and of allowing cruise missiles over Canadian territory. These initiatives, I think, give all parliamentarians the opportunity to take part in the debate and to contribute to a solution with suggestions to the government to enable it to take the most enlightened stand.

The Prime Minister should in this case consult us, but more importantly, we should vote once the government has taken a position. On this subject, I recall the events of November 1990 and January 1991, again in connection with Iraq, when twice in this House—and I remember that the Liberal Party insisted on having a vote at the time so all parliamentarians could have a say and the government could have the results of a vote by all parliamentarians in this House before any armed intervention took place.

I think the arguments that were valid in November 1990 and January 1991 remain valid today, have the same moral value, one that will make Canada's position clear to its allies.

The House should therefore, in our opinion, be once again consulted and hold a formal vote on the position before the start of any war, if this were unfortunately the only solution—and I think everyone agrees.

Today's consultation is, in the opinion of the Bloc, merely the first step in a process that will clearly establish a position on Canada's involvement in action against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

In conclusion, we must take the diplomatic approach, consult our allies, propose courses of action, involve the United Nations Security Council and, should military intervention be necessary, it would be eminently desirable to have it carried out under the aegis of the United Nations.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the question of ongoing military and humanitarian crisis in Iraq merits very careful consideration, very careful consideration by all of us here as parliamentarians and very careful consideration by the Canadian people as a whole. Let us be clear, Canadians are a proud people with a distinguished history of providing leadership in seeking peaceful solutions to the world's penchants and the world's problems.

Let me say at the outset that the Canadian government has a duty to ensure a policy that is first consistent with our status as a sovereign, independent state. In that regard, it was a cause of concern to a lot of Canadians to hear the U.S. secretary of state today pronounce what the position of Canada was in regard to massive military intervention in Iraq.

Second, the Government of Canada has a responsibility to adopt a policy that can command the broadest possible degree of support within the international community.

Third, and perhaps most important, the government has a responsibility to adopt a policy which will be truly effective in solving the problem that confronts the world community and the people of Iraq today.

The view of the New Democratic Party is that massive military aggression against Iraq as proposed by the United States is insupportable on several counts. It is not now receiving and is unlikely to engender a broad measure of support internationally. It will result in the almost certain death or maiming of large numbers of innocent civilians.

Before elaborating on the reasons why we believe Canada should refuse to participate in this massive military bombing, I want to make two things very clear. First, the New Democratic Party fully acknowledges that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and a human rights abuser. Let there be no doubt about that. Second, the New Democratic Party is solidly on record as supporting, unequivocally, those UN resolutions which forbid Iraq from acquiring, manufacturing or using biological or chemical weapons. That any nation should obtain or deploy such weapons of mass destruction is deplorable. It is unacceptable. It is truly morally repugnant.

In our view—and I think we would do well to keep this in mind—the manufacture, proliferation or use of nuclear weapons is equally evil and unconscionable. Let us not lose sight of the global security threat and the global challenge which we face in that regard.

I want to outline at least five reasons why the New Democratic Party opposes the massive military action proposed by the United States. Let us be clear that the U.S. secretary of state has described the intervention as being substantial, sustained and heavy. That is the plan.

First, the diplomatic efforts to bring a peaceful resolution to this crisis simply have not been fully exhausted. Depicting the Iraqi leader as a tyrant and a despot, however accurate, however soul-satisfying it may be, does nothing to move us toward a solid resolution. In fact, it can be said that it detracts from our objective and, indeed, from our obligation.

What is our obligation? Let me suggest that our obligation is finding a way to secure Iraq's compliance with UN weapons inspections and the destruction of its deadly chemical and biological weapons, while at the same time alleviating the suffering of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who are victims of a prolonged campaign of economic sanctions.

Let us not forget that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have already died. It is estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations that one child dies every 10 minutes today in Iraq as a result of those sanctions.

I believe that the world wants Canada to show the kind of leadership that it did on the land mines ban issue. Let us remind ourselves, and do so with considerable pride, that Canada stepped out in front. Canada seized the challenge. Canada provided the leadership, not because the United States of America was urging us to do so, but in defiance of the United States, to put in place a land mines treaty ban.

I was delighted to be able to stand in this House and congratulate the Government of Canada for providing that leadership. I believe that the world wants Canada to once again provide that kind of leadership; not sit out in the shadows or hide in the weeds, but move into this vacuum to provide that kind of leadership again. Canadians expect no less of us.

That requires that we be far more aggressive in pursuing a policy whereby concessions of weapons inspection and destruction by Iraq would be met with a reasonable and enforceable set of goals and timetables for easing and eventually eliminating sanctions.

Surely the proposal advanced by the Russians that would allow for inspection of presently restricted presidential sites is worthy of careful consideration.

In return for demonstrations of goodwill, for concrete measures of progress, Iraq ought to be permitted to sell more oil in order to obtain food and medical supplies necessary for the very survival of the men, women and children in that country. Let us not forget that in the years after the second world war our objective was to limit the size and capabilities of the German and Japanese armed forces, not to deliberately promote famine and disease among the citizens of those countries.

Second, I believe that Canadians favour truly multilateral solutions to such international crises.

It is wrong to claim that the United States is heading a large international coalition. France and Russia, which sit on the UN Security Council, oppose the American proposal of military intervention. All 22 members of the League of Arab States also oppose it.

The vast majority of members of the international community oppose such action. Why? Because a military operation in the region could have unexpected and undesirable consequences.

The military offensive headed by the United States shows how important it is for the United Nations to have a standing army, one that is truly multilateral and independent.

Third, military aggression is unlikely to meet any of its intended strategic or political objectives. Surely it is notable that even former U.S. gulf war commander General Norman Schwarzkopf, known as Stormin' Norman, has voiced grave doubts about the wisdom of such an air attack.

U.S. led strikes may in fact merely solidify Saddam Hussein's grip on power, unite his population and only temporarily interfere with his weapons building program. Therefore we remain profoundly sceptical of the long term utility of such military intervention, particularly when we weigh the potential risks of heightened instability in the area.

Fourth, the claims of so-called pinpoint bombing and the limitation of collateral civilian damage is nonsensical military doublespeak. These euphemisms simply conceal the very real likelihood of massive loss of life and the maiming of thousands of civilians.

I want to share briefly an excerpt from a letter that arrived in my office today. It reads, “the smart bombs won't be any smarter this time”. There are those who support military action over diplomatic initiatives.

If it is indeed true that Saddam Hussein is stockpiling and concealing chemical and biological weapons, as it appears is the case, it is truly terrifying to imagine the impact that targeting missiles at such sites could have. The resultant release and the spread of lethal chemical substances into the surrounding area is surely too high a price to pay in human terms for the achievement of highly questionable results.

Fifth and finally, Canada should be seeking to adopt a position on this question which contributes to the reduction of international tensions instead of inflaming them. Our goal should surely be to broker peaceful solutions in the instance of such international crises. Canada should stake out a position independent of our southern neighbour, as it did so courageously in the instance of land mines.

I ask the House, is it beyond our imagination to conceive of a solution to this impasse which does not involve massive loss of life and damage to vital Iraqi infrastructure? I ask members of the House to reflect on the 600,000 Iraqi children which the United Nations tells us have died since the imposition of sanctions five years ago.

We read in today's press of the American objective to knock out the electricity generating stations which provide power to the people of Iraq. I ask my colleagues to reflect on the impact such an event recently had on the lives of so many of our constituents. Is this the kind of hardship that we are determined to inflict on a civilian population that has already endured so much suffering and pain both as a result of the policies of its own government and as a result of the regime of sanctions?

In conclusion, wise heads are right to counsel caution and careful reflection. This evening I implore the Prime Minister to intensify our efforts to achieve a diplomatic solution and to find through peaceful means a resolution to this terrible standoff. Canada should surely be on the side of those who seek to resolve this crisis through negotiation and common sense. There is nothing to be gained in the long run through a strategy of provocation and sabre rattling.

Let me finish by citing the words of another Canadian who wrote to me today: “The closing years of the millennium should not see yet another major armed conflict added to this century's baleful record. As a respected middle power, Canada should adhere to its well recognized role of peacekeeper in world affairs”.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are very keen to finally have a debate this evening in Parliament on a decision that is a very solemn one in the life of a country, a decision that weighs heavily on the shoulders of those who must directly or indirectly make decisions putting other people's lives at risk.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party are very concerned by the developments in this conflict, especially since over a week and a half or so ago the American president had a conversation with the Prime Minister of Canada. As soon as the parliamentary session resumed, I called on the government to permit this Parliament, and through it the people of Canada, to participate fully in the debate and in the decision on Canada's role in this potential conflict.

I wrote to the Prime Minister over a week ago requesting a statement in the House of Commons to the members and to the people of Canada on his government's position. I wanted him to share with us not only the information available to his government, but also the positions held by our allies and, to be very specific, the statement made by the American Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who was repeating at every opportunity, and I quote: “Time is running out”.

Those familiar with diplomatic language and the way governments work were left with no choice but to wonder what these words meant and to try to understand their impact.

I therefore took the trouble not just to write to the Prime Minister, but also to telephone him on Sunday, the day before Parliament resumed, to ask him for two things: my first request was that his government make a statement in the House of Commons, and my second request, consistent with the recommendations of a parliamentary committee, was that a joint committee of the House and Senate be created so that we could hear from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, and the individual responsible for the military direction of Canadian troops, the Chief of Defence Staff, in an appropriate context. Unfortunately, we met with a blank wall, a flat no.

Today, I regret to say, we find ourselves in a situation I can only describe as ridiculous, in which the government tells us it cannot take a position until it has heard from the Parliament of Canada.

Are we to conclude from this that the Government of Canada therefore had no position on this conflict, and still has none? Have things become so absurd that the government elected by the Canadian people, which has traditionally played an important role in these matters, has no position on this particular matter so far? If that is the case, things have reached a sorry pass. We have certainly slipped in our international stature.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada would much prefer a peaceful and diplomatic solution to this international crisis. It is not repetitive to say it today. It is not insignificant to say that. We should say that and repeat it as many times as we feel necessary, as a country and as citizens of this planet.

If this proves impossible because of Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow the UN to perform its duties, then we believe that Canada should fully support, under the authority of the United Nations, military action by our traditional allies to destroy Iraqi weapons capable of killing millions of people. That is the position we take.

The President of the United States spoke with the Prime Minister more than a week and a half ago. I asked the Prime Minister at the time to make a full statement to the House of Commons, to explain the position of his government, to share with us the information that he had, to go further, to actually help us interpret the position of other countries that play a major role.

For example, Madeleine Albright, the American secretary of state, has said repeatedly “Time is running out”. For any sensible person familiar with diplomacy and with the means at the disposal of countries, this was a very significant statement. Yet we were left in the dark as to its significance. Even now this government has not offered any light in regard to what exactly the Americans meant.

The government has waited to this day to make its position clear. We have reached a point of total absurdity. If I understand the government correctly, the government has said it wants to hear from the House of Commons before it takes a position. If we understand it correctly, Canada in this whole conflict has had no position, no position until this day? In international affairs it is a very sad moment for Canada to discover that, given the leadership role Canada played in 1991 in influencing the American administration to work under the authority of the UN, we have now abandoned any attempt at influence.

More than a week ago, I asked the Prime Minister, through a letter and a phone call, whether he would not make a statement to the House and whether he would not strike a parliamentary committee to hear from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and the chief of defence staff. We even made this recommendation because it is consistent with the committee report filed in 1994, supported by a majority of Liberals on the committee, that stated very clearly that in these circumstances there should be a standing committee to whom the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence and the chief of defence staff should report. This is nothing new. This report was in 1994. The government just thumbed its nose at this Parliament and its own majority on the committee and chose to break another promise.

There are many questions in regard to this whole debate. We have to ask what is at stake. What is the best way of dealing with this dangerous situation? What forces and facilities are needed in the event of military action? What is the objective of a military strike and how long will it take to achieve? Is parliamentary support necessary?

I would like to take the opportunity to address some of these issues, first on what is at stake. What is at stake is a moral imperative, that of peace and security for this world, peace and security not only for those who are living peacefully in countries such as Canada and are privileged by our citizenship but also, as other leaders have said in this House today, the peace and security of other human beings with whom we share this world.

What is the best way of dealing with this situation? As I have made clear, the position of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is that diplomacy of course must be the preferred option. However, should diplomacy fail then the use of force would then become justified.

In our opinion diplomacy is not a success if Saddam Hussein agrees only to the inspection of a limited number of sites. Security council resolution 687 sets out the terms that Iraq must comply with under the gulf war ceasefire. It is clear in that resolution that the ceasefire is conditional on UN sanctioned inspection of Iraqi weapon sites.

I want to quote from paragraph eight of resolution 687 because it spells it out very clearly:

—decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.

The resolution goes on at length but it is very clear.

It is clear from the ceasefire agreement that should Iraq continue to violate UN security council resolutions regarding inspection of Iraqi weapon sites, the use of force against Iraq to destroy its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons is justified.

However, it is not clear, given the answers the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have offered today in the House of Commons what diplomatic efforts they have undertaken to resolve the rift that currently exists between members of the UN security council.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs made a very troubling admission today in the House of Commons when asked whether or not we should renew our efforts on the UN front. The Minister of Foreign Affairs had to admit to this House today that if we did that we ran the risk of establishing and defining a rift within the UN security council itself.

Pretending this problem does not exist is not going to make it go away. This is a very serious admission on behalf of the minister and one that this House and Canadians need to know before we make a decision with regard to the future of the men and women who will be involved in this conflict.

What would be the position should Russia and China continue to hold the view that there should be no intervention? Will we provide support for military action by our traditional allies or would we be opposed?

What forces are needed and what can Canada provide is another question. It is unclear at this point what exactly is being asked. Currently only Britain and the United States have committed to military participation while Germany has pledged full political support and the use of air bases.

Of course the world cannot be held hostage by Saddam Hussein and his arsenal of biological weapons.

However, it must be clear to all countries involved what the objectives of a military strike in Iraq are and what the strike will accomplish. Now is the time to be clear on this.

There are those who may not think it is significant. History is full of examples of countries that got themselves involved in conflicts they thought were temporary, regional, limited in time and space but could not get out of them. I do not have to remind members of what the Vietnam experience was for the Americans. Yet some seem already to have forgotten. Why? Because it must be clear from the outset what objective we are pursuing. We have yet to hear exactly what it is. The joint committee would help to establish and clarify that position. I am still hoping the government will come to its senses and establish that joint committee.

What will we offer in terms of capacity? This government has reduced Canada's forces by about 25% since 1994. It is not any coincidence that the American president would not ask for more. He knows full well that Canada cannot offer more than what he is asking. What is the state of Canada's military equipment? These are all questions we have to ask.

What objective will we pursue? I see two obvious objectives. Iraq's air defences and many weapons we have identified would need to be destroyed.

We need to know what position our government will take if military bombing is taken and is extended to a vast area. These are all questions that need to be answered. We also know that time is running out.

I want to know whether or not Canada's Parliament will be involved in this debate. In 1991 there were 71 hours of debate and three debates in the House of Commons. We learned a great deal from the experience of 1991.

I hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs heckling me from the other side of the House of Commons. This is a happy coincidence. Let me quote from Debates of 1990. One member in the House at the time said: “If all of a sudden we are beginning to deploy troops and give them rules of engagement or a mandate that extends beyond the clear definition provided by the UN, then we may also be in danger of undermining the opportunity of the UN to show it must be the place where decisions are made”. That was said by the member who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That is what he thought then.

Let me quote again. A member of the House of Commons said: “Do individual nations, whether they be large or small, have the right to decide when to use force for invasionary purposes? It should not be a unilateral decision”. That was the same minister recorded in Hansard on September 24, 1990. I can only regret that he does not seem to be as forthcoming today.

This is a very important moment in the life of our Parliament and Canadians deserve that many questions be answered. Our party will continue to push so that we have as much information as possible.

We will continue to push the government to answer these questions and put an end to this absurd situation, which I must say I have trouble understanding. I do not understand what this government has to hide.

Why not strike a committee? Why not make a statement in the House of Commons? It is not as though partisan issues were involved. We have just been through a crisis. In such times, neither the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the leader of the Reform Party, or the Leader of the New Democratic Party engage in partisan politics. Yet the government is stuck in some kind of rut that is frankly difficult to explain.

Given the extraordinary circumstances we are in and the fact that the government has not been forthcoming on this matter, I would like to close my remarks by asking for the unanimous consent of the House of Commons to put the following motion:

That the proceedings be interrupted at this time to permit the Prime Minister to answer questions from members of all parties for the next thirty minutes.

[The Speaker]

We have another motion asking for unanimous consent to take a particular action. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of this House to put the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

He does not have unanimous consent. Debate.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say on behalf of the government how much we appreciate the comments made by the leaders of the various parties, with the exception of the last speaker, who I think have approached this matter is a forthright way, trying to come to grips with the real issues that are at stake instead of engaging in the kind of cheap politics that we have heard for the past 20 minutes.

It is unfortunate that a once great party has now taken up wallowing in the bile of its self-defeat over the last two elections and is no longer prepared to deal with issues in a serious way.

Let me point out one simple fact that the leader of the opposition, who seems to have had a striking case of amnesia, has forgotten. When he was a member of the cabinet, the previous prime minister and his government made a decision to deploy troops and did not get around to asking Parliament for 12 weeks what its opinion was. Now all of a sudden here he stands with this great smile of indignation, with crocodile tears pouring around his ankles, saying “for goodness sake, we are having a debate tonight and, my goodness, it took you a day to get around to it”.

What hypocrisy coming from a member of a government that had no interest, no commitment and no engagement to bring Parliament into it whatsoever. That is the problem.

Even during this event, where other opposition parties had the good sense to request briefings, and were so given, members of the Conservative Party could not quite get themselves around to making the call or asking for those briefings. We called them and said “tell us what you are prepared to do”. We never heard back from them.

With respect to a joint committee, I would like to tell the hon. member, because he is not around Parliament very much, that we do have standing committees on foreign affairs and defence. We meet regularly. They, too, have asked for briefings, which they will be given. It would help if the hon. member spent a little more time in this place finding out what is going on. Then he might be able to get his facts straight.

When it comes to some of the questions, I think they are legitimate and proper questions. First let us talk for a moment about the basic position of Canada in this matter. This is not a matter of simply following what the United States wants or, I should say to the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party, what the Labour leader in the United Kingdom has asked for, Canada's co-operation. This is a question of whether we as an independent country make a choice as to what our basic national interest is.

I would say our basic national interest, as properly elaborated by members of this House, is to say clearly the danger that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government represent by their unwillingness to abide by the ceasefire resolution, continuing with the manufacture and potential development of weapons of mass destruction and carrying biological weapons presents a clear and imminent danger to Canadians as well as to everybody else around the world.

Therefore we must find ways of stopping him. We know from past history that Saddam Hussein is not limited by any sense of moral compunction. He recognizes no restraint of the normal civilized world.

I spent ten days in Iraq negotiating the release of Canadian hostages back in the late 1980s. It is a forbidding place. More important, it is an immoral place from the point of view of that government.

By his use of biological and chemical weapons against the Kurds, against his own people, against the minority of his own people, he demonstrates how dangerous a person he can be, and that continued possession of those weapons of mass destruction represents a clear and present danger to all of us. We must take action. Several members have said “Why isn't Canada being more diplomatic?” I can say we have been very busy on that diplomatic front.

I was in the Middle East before Christmas meeting with virtually all the major Arab countries to talk to them specifically about the issue of a peace process on the one side and the situation of Iraq on the other, trying to find what solutions there might be, trying to build some bridges through the Arab world into Iraq to say this is the way to go.

We have taken actions in the United Nations to support very clearly the easing of the economic embargo. We supported the secretary general in his interest of raising the limits on which the oil for peace program can be implemented, so we could bring money and support and resources to the children of Iraq and the people of Iraq.

There is one basic problem. Saddam Hussein does not want to play. He does not recognize that. We could solve this diplomatically in 10 seconds if Saddam Hussein simply lived up to his obligations. That is all. He signed a paper, he agreed to the conditions and he could tomorrow find a total solution if he simply lived up to his responsibilities, but he refuses to do so.

Over the past seven years we have found one provocation after another, a refusal to live up to those conditions, to a point finally where the report of UNSCOM, not the United States, not the United Kingdom, but the United Nations itself has clearly put in writing that they have a great apprehension about the continued capacity of Saddam Hussein to manufacture biological and chemical weapons. If something is not done, that capacity will become fully developed and he can not only use it for his own purposes, but also use it to transfer into the hands of other terrorists or other rogue states.

There does come a time when some decision has to be made. Even as I am here on the floor of this House, we are continuing our efforts at the United Nations to see if there is some way of getting a further resolution of the security council to provide a way in which both the incentive to the Iraqis to an easing of the sanctions can be developed and passed.

When the leader of the Conservatives scoffs at the idea that we do not want to emphasize or exaggerate the risk, what kind of topsy-turvy world does this gentleman live in? I do not understand what he is talking about. He wants us to go and deliberately show that there is a split. He wants Canada to take the lead to say there is no agreement. Or should we be working as hard as we can over the next period of time to try to get that agreement, to try to work with these people, to get the kind of resolution to the security council that might work. That is what I was saying today. Let us try to do what is pragmatic and useful.

I would suggest one thing that this House should consider. It goes back to what the Prime Minister said. These are difficult decisions. I think the Leader of the Opposition said the same thing. No one relishes it. One thing that might occur as part of the diplomatic initiative that may be required is to demonstrate solidarity, to show that there is total resolve among civilized countries that we are willing to stand up for basic principles and ideals. That is the way we have to do it.

Let us get a message to Saddam Hussein that we are prepared to take the action necessary to protect the lives of Canadians, the lives of the people in the Middle East and the lives of the people around the world.

It has been pointed out that we took the initiative on the land mines. That is true for one basic reason. Here was a weapon system that had a clear and present danger to lives of innocent civilians. There is no real difference in this issue. We are trying to deal with an individual or a government that is preparing and developing massive weapons of the most diabolical kind that can be unleashed upon the people of this world. Therefore we have to take a stand to make sure they are not used.

In the same way we want to eliminate land mines we want to eliminate biological and chemical weapons. We want Iraq to live up to the convention it signed and we want to find a way to ensure that there is a basic standard in this world that says you should not use these weapons against innocent people. That is the dilemma that we face.

I certainly am in full agreement with those who have spoken so far in saying that we also have to take into account what the repercussions of this must be. That is why we are here in the House today. This is not, as some member suggested, where Parliament is going to make a decision. We are consulting with the House. I would say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition he knows this well. I ask him to look at the record. He knows that on questions like Bosnia we have had full debates and briefings in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and the defence committee. We have brought the debates to the House.

Ultimately I must say this. The final decision rests with the Government of Canada. We will use and develop the best kind of exchange of views of Parliament, but ultimately we must decide. The Prime Minister said so in question period today. We are here to, first, find out what the reflective views of constituents from across Canada are about what that decision should be, the general thrust of it.

We can certainly continue to work with Parliament in a variety of ways, and we have in the past, but we cannot abrogate the responsibility to make a decision which, as the Prime Minister said, the cabinet will consider tomorrow.

We can then follow through on the kinds of continuing dialogue and exchange of information to ensure that Parliament is fully involved in the ensuing developments.

We should not assume—I was a little struck by the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in question period—that we may be near war. I dearly hope not. I do not think we should be even using the language of jingoism in this case.

What we should be saying is that we want to avoid war at all costs. At the same time, we must work to ensure that that war is not leashed upon us through biological and chemical weapons. That is why we must take a stand to prevent that happening in the most effective way possible.

Given the kind of support we have heard so far with the exception of the Conservative Party, we think we can go into cabinet with a better sense of where Canadians are coming from and the kinds of directions they would like us to follow.

Parliament is really very much the crucible in which these decisions will be looked at, will be examined. We will continue to make that commitment to do so.

I would say that whatever decision is taken tomorrow by the primem minister and the cabinet to respond to the request that is made, we will also continue to have time. Let us not get ourselves into some kind of frantic feeding frenzy that all of a sudden we have to rush to the barricades.

We are prepared to say to Saddam Hussein that we will, if forced to the very last resort, be prepared to support military action.

In the meantime, I believe that a show of solidarity, a show of unity among the western countries will help greatly to get a more peaceful solution. I may be wrong. I may have to say unfortunately it did not work because this is an imperfect world and there are imperfect people in it. No one is more imperfect than Saddam Hussein in this kind of question.

Let us devote our attention and our commitment to the kind of consensus that we hope to develop through this parliamentary debate to ensure that Canada can continue to play a role in conflict resolution, to take the leadership that we can. We would like to take more leadership if we are on the security council. We hope members of Parliament will help us get there next fall.

In the meantime, we will do everything in our power, everything in our resources to try to find that solution. It is important that in tonight's debate for those who are listening in that the message is clear to the Iraqi government and to President Saddam Hussein that we stand with the United Nations and the resolutions that were passed beginning in 1990 and 1991 right until last November when they said any sort of breach by the Iraqis of the commitments made in the ceasefire agreement of 1991 constitutes a threat to international peace and security.

We went looking for a mandate and the Leader of the Conservatives was quite happy to quote for me. I am glad he did. It saves me the trouble of doing so. That still stands. There are resolutions passed by the security council as late as November saying that any breach of the agreements made in 1991 presents a clear threat to peace and security and that therefore there is the kind of authorization through the security council and its record of decision in the past seven years to try to provide that kind of mandate.

Let us see what happens to the security council in the next week as the United Kingdom and other nations along with ourselves are trying to work toward a resolution that can strengthen that position and also provide the Iraqis with the incentive they need in terms of being able to alter the terms of the embargo or the sanctions to try to find a solution.

That is perhaps the best balance of a diplomatic approach, to provide the carrot and the stick at the same time, but we need to have both in this case because that is the only language that Saddam Hussein understands.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is not the time to play partisan politics, to get into the infighting that we might get into, but to do what is good for Canada. I think that is our job here in this House tonight, to get the facts on the table so that people can understand what the issues are and what the real threat is.

I believe that we have a moral, a political obligation to Canadians to let them know what this issue is all about. It would be my intention this evening to try to add the information that I have put together which certainly I have received from briefings from Foreign Affairs, from Canada, from other countries, from ambassadors and citizens of Canada who I have talked to. It would be my intention to talk about it from the moral perspective of what is right for Canada, for Canadians and for this House.

After listening to the statement made by the leader of our party, I think it might have been better to have a full briefing of all members of Parliament in this House. We could have had a question and answer period for however long. We could have controlled and allowed people to present their party positions. That is an approach we should look at for the future. Today it is important to get the information out concerning what is an extremely serious situation for Canadians and for the world as we face Saddam Hussein.

An often asked question is what kind of person is Saddam Hussein. I am not sure that we are not looking at another 1938 and another Hitler and having a debate like that. I think this guy is as serious and as dangerous as the man they discussed way back then. This person has a record of using biological and chemical weapons on his own people and on his enemies. He seems to have no compassion in his use of those kinds of weapons.

Look at his history. In 1975 he signed a non-interference pact with Iran, yet in 1980 he invaded Iran and the war began. Those eight years of war did not seem to cause him very much grief even with the million people who were killed, some of his own and some Iranians. He used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers and on his own people. He accepted the UN ceasefire but it was not long until he decided to push further. He worked on enriching uranium and on biological and chemical weapons. On August 2, 1990, when he invaded Kuwait he again indicated the kind of person he really is, a power hungry individual.

As I go through this history I realize that we did commit back then to being involved. I think Canadians were proud of that involvement because we were fighting a person who was dangerous to society. We know how he has functioned in government. He has even killed his own relatives. He kills dissidents. He kills ministers. He kills Kurdish minorities. We know what kind of person he is. I wonder when I hear people ask if he is really dangerous. I do not think there is any doubt about the danger posed by a person like Saddam Hussein.

We have to look at the history of UNSCOM. I have spent quite some time examining what it has told us over the past seven and a half years. I have talked to 12 ambassadors about their feelings on what UNSCOM was saying. I have talked to our own people about that. I have talked to the Americans, the British, the French, the Russians.

What about UNSCOM? Is this stuff really there? I think all have heard the facts and figures. I could go through a long list but I do not think it will be necessary, except that we must let Canadians know that UNSCOM is telling us that these people have these weapons, that the history, the facts and figures are there. This is not something being imagined nor is it being created by the Americans, as we have heard. These facts and figures are there. Representatives I have talked to from at least 12 countries—the minister has probably talked to many others—agree those weapons are there.

It has been documented that 38,000 tonnes of chemical weapons have been destroyed. This guy produced those things and they have been destroyed. There are 480,000 litres of CW agents for the production of chemical weapons. This guy produced that. He organized that. That is the kind of person we are talking about.

UNSCOM has confirmed the existence of industrial scale VX nerve gas, the production of four tonnes of VX. One drop will kill an individual. He has produced them and we know they are there.

There is a list of other things: anthrax, 8,400 litres and 19,000 litres of botulinum. What more facts do we need? There are people on the ground in Iraq saying that stuff is there. What more proof could we have of the danger of this individual?

I could continue to talk about this matter but will add only a few notes. Britain is shocked and appalled by the amount of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. That is quoting Britain directly. It is shocked that this level has been allowed to build up and wishes action would have been taken sooner.

I have talked to the Israelis. The Russian position is pretty straightforward. All of us are working for a peaceful solution. It would be much better to have a peaceful solution. Everybody is for that. However, if that is not possible, who are we dealing with? What is Saddam Hussein like? That is the point.

The Russians say their biggest concern is of the conflict spreading, what it will be like to see, and the suffering that the Iraqi people will experience during a war they have already gone through. We are all worried about that. All of us care. Our war is not with the Iraqi people or the Arab states. Our war is with Saddam Hussein, an insane dictator. That is whom our war is with.

Turkey has already suffered from all kinds of instability and terrorism. All kinds of refugees were forced on Turkey because of the kind of dictator Hussein is. Iran is extremely concerned. It is very sympathetic for the people of Iraq, the very people they fought against, but they have no sympathy for Saddam Hussein. They know what he is like. They will confirm, if asked, what kind of an individual we are dealing with in Saddam Hussein.

It is not a matter of establishing how dangerous the person is. We all agree how dangerous he is. We are at the point of looking at the real threats of terrorism and our real options.

Again I paraphrase our leader when he said that the moral justification for taking lives can only be justified if it is to save lives. I think that is what we have to ask. If we take option one and let this person thumb his nose at United Nations resolutions and at the allies, he will continue to produce these weapons. He will continue to develop delivery mechanisms. He will continue to plan in his own sick way how he will push his power beyond his own country.

What does that mean? It is one thing when he terrorizes his people. It is one thing when he terrorizes his neighbours. Could he affect us? Could he destabilize our civilization with his terrorism? That is possible. That is not dreaming. That is not science fiction. That is reality.

If we do not act today what kind of a threat do we have in the future? All of us only need to imagine—or we go to some of the movies in the theatres now—the destabilization that our economies and our countries can have because of terrorism.

Our second option is to demand the compliance of Saddam Hussein to the rules set out in 1991 by the United Nations which say that he must, without any exceptions, without any side deals, allow full inspection of all possible bases within Iraq. He must comply. There are no other options. Everything must be inspected.

The next part of it is that the weapons of mass destruction must be destroyed. We cannot let a rogue state, a rogue person like this, have control of those kinds of weapons. Otherwise we will pay the price down the road big time.

Yes, we want diplomacy. We want it to the bitter end. We want everybody who thinks they can add something to add it to try to bring about a solution. We want to let Saddam Hussein know that he has taken us to the brink and that the only way to move back is to comply with the UN resolutions. He cannot move back and six months down the road pull us back to the brink again. It has gone too far this time. He was produced too much. He has too much there. He is now a danger to the world as we know it.

It is time we put that message to him diplomatically. If all that fails, we have no other solution but to use force, to force him into compliance. That force used now will save lives in the future. I am convinced of that. In working on this and listening to what I have listened to, I am convinced of that.

We cannot hide from the issue. We cannot pretend it is not an issue. We cannot say Saddam Hussein might be all right. We cannot say maybe he will not use these weapons. He will use these weapons. He will develop them and so it is time for action.

We cannot hide from it. It is time for us to engage in world politics, to let people know where we stand, to stand up and be counted. As difficult as this might seem, we must stop the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein. The terror must end. It is time for Canada and Canadians to stand up for what they believe in, stand with their allies, and the more multinational this is the better it is.

I think everybody in the House should agree that we must stand up and be counted. It is time for that. Our party certainly is dedicated to working to that end. It is not time for partisan politics. It is time for what is good for Canada. That is what Canadians want to hear from us in the House tonight.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs made reference to the fact that at no time had there been any request made by members of the Progressive Conservative Party of him, his office or the prime minister's office with respect to a request for a briefing.

That is a glaring inaccuracy. It can be confirmed very easily through records in the prime minister's office that in fact a request for a briefing was made not once but several times by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and by members of the House. That is a glaring inaccuracy on the record.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

That is not a point of order. We will resume debate with the hon. Minister of National Defence.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, we need to get over the technicalities the hon. member was just talking about and to get on with the serious issues we are dealing with tonight. The spread of chemical and biological weapons is one of the key security issues of our time.

In the past when thinking about weapons of mass destruction more likely we thought of nuclear weapons. Certainly that threat during the cold war was one that was brought to our attention constantly. While that threat has diminished it still exists. There are still a lot of those weapons in the world. Meanwhile we have seen a growing threat from biological and chemical weaponry being produced and being stored. Nowhere is that more evident than in Iraq.

In Iraq it has been used. It was used in the Iran-Iraq war. It was used against the Kurds. Saddam Hussein has quite clearly shown that he will use this kind of weaponry. He is indeed, as has been said here tonight, a very dangerous individual. We cannot put it past him to continue to try to produce and use this kind of weaponry.

The United Nations in its inspection commission has time and time again come up with a number of components of these kinds of chemical biological agents, components that needed to be destroyed, components that he continues to try to produce to build a stockpile of this weaponry.

Now he is refusing to allow that inspection group to check a number of very key locations. He has for some reason decided to develop over 40 new palaces, 40 palaces in addition to whatever existed prior to that, 40 palaces which have a combined area larger than many cities in the world. This is the kind of cover-up he is attempting to do so that he can continue to be able to produce weapons of mass destruction.

The evidence is overwhelming. The danger in the immediate area, the danger to security in the world, is quite evident. We talked about how a few drops of some of these agents can kill thousands and perhaps even millions of people. They do not require sophisticated delivery systems like nuclear weapons do. They can be delivered in many different ways including a briefcase, many ways this man will not overlook if he feels he needs to use this kind of weaponry. This is a very dangerous man, and he cannot be allowed to continue to develop this kind of weaponry.

The UN resolution is quite clear. He and his country need to abide by that resolution. We cannot walk away from that resolution. We want every diplomatic means to be found for him to comply with it. We cannot walk away. The credibility of the international community would be badly damaged if we did so. How would any future resolutions to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction ever work if we do not back up this one, if we do not make sure this one is complied with?

He says he will now allow some additional inspections but not everything the resolution requires him to do. We cannot, as the British found out in 1939, appease dictators. We cannot expect that we will be to control the situation on his terms. They have to be on the terms of the international community. They have to be on the terms of the UN security council resolution. The credibility of the United Nations is important and at stake in this case.

We continue to press for diplomatic resolution of the matter. A military presence is now evident in the area through aircraft carriers, various other aircraft and ships that are amassing under the control of the United States and the United Kingdom. Together with other allied efforts hopefully we will add a particular show of solidarity which will result in there being a diplomatic resolution.

We certainly hope that will be the case. We certainly have to give every effort to try to bring about a peaceful and diplomatic resolution of the matter. If that cannot be done, we have to be prepared to see the use of military force to ensure the UN resolutions are abided by.

The Leader of the Opposition in his comments quite clearly said that we do not want to be in a position where lives are lost. There have been many lives lost in this area of the world. Many lives were lost in the gulf war. The lives of his own people were constantly in danger and constant death was occurring within Iraq. A terrible situation exists with respect to the survival of the people of that country.

We do not want to see more lives taken but if it is necessary to ensure the saving of lives, then these very difficult decisions about military action have to be contemplated. If at the end of the day the diplomatic resolution does not work, then we have to be prepared to see military action taken.

I do not believe Canada can stand idly by and watch our allies go in and attempt to enforce the United Nations resolution. We have to be a part of that effort. That is what this discussion is about tonight, to determine whether Canada should be a part of that effort. That is something the government will make a decision on shortly. From there we will follow up with the appropriate dialogue with our allies.

Are we in a position to do that? Yes we are. As we indicated in the 1994 defence white paper, we have troops that are multipurpose and combat capable. They are ready and capable to operate in a support fashion in the Iraqi situation. That is the extent of the request made by the United States which is leading the allies in this endeavour. In a support position Canada could provide ready and capable personnel and equipment.

The Leader of the Opposition has asked for more specific details concerning the extent of our support position. More discussion is required with our allies on this topic in order to determine the precise nature of the mission and how Canada can play a supporting role in co-ordination with the efforts of other allies. If we decide as a government to participate in a military action if necessary, then more effort would be required to determine exactly in what way we should do that.

Tonight we need to resolve that this United Nations resolution will be upheld, that Saddam Hussein and his country will comply with that resolution and that we will ensure that these chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction are removed and destroyed as they should be so they will not be a threat to the people in that area of the world or to the world in general.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you first of all that I shall be splitting my time with the hon. member for Laval East.

We are here this evening for a debate on the United States' invitation for Canada to take part in military interventions in the Middle East. If the Bloc Quebecois considers it essential for parliament to be involved in a debate, nevertheless the conditions under which this evening's debate is being held leave no doubt about where it is headed, about the decision the government appears to have already reached on this matter.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have, moreover, been far too uncommunicative this evening in informing the hon. members of this House of the steps taken in favour of a peaceful solution to the dispute which is pitting Iraq against the international community, and the House has not been given sufficient information on the arguments behind intervention by us and by the U.S.

What is more, in the Minister of Foreign Affairs' speech just now, he suggested that the hon. members of this House, the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as well as of the Standing Committee on National Defence, had been invited to attend information and discussion sessions on the situation in Iraq.

Since being elected and since taking part in the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I was never invited to participate in such sessions. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is suggesting that consultations took place when, in fact, this was not the case.

Since members of Parliament were not consulted, and given the obvious lack of related information, we have questions to ask the government, questions that have not been answered but that must be answered before we take a stand on behalf of Quebeckers, whom we are representing in this debate.

The first thing that concerns the Bloc Quebecois is that Canada did not truly real participate in a process to convince, through peaceful means, Iraq to comply with the security council's resolutions, including Resolution 687, which provides that Iraq must not produce weapons and must destroy all existing stocks.

Again, in spite of his eloquent speech here this evening, the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not demonstrate, nor did the Prime Minister, that Canada had, to this day, contributed to a sufficiently sustained diplomatic effort to this end. However, the minister did more or less confirm that he was leaving it up to other states to search for such a peaceful solution.

It is not enough to talk to the United States, to listen to the request made by the U.S. president. Calling the British Prime Minister or talking to our Australian counterparts is not enough.

If we are really seeking a peaceful solution, it is important that Canada look at our allies' positions on this issue. Canada should know and take into consideration the fact that several of its NATO and OSCE allies, including France, Belgium and Italy, have serious concerns about the military intervention favoured by the United States and supported by other powers, to say nothing of the reluctance shown by two other members of the security council, namely Russia and China. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs pointed out during question period today, Canada's efforts in seeking a diplomatic solution must not be limited to the discussions that took place two weeks ago with the Russian foreign affairs minister.

Canada must above all add its voice to the chorus of countries seeking first and foremost a diplomatic solution. It should get more actively involved in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict opposing Iraq to the international community.

We therefore call on the international community to make a more sustained effort to resolve a conflict that has endured for several years and in which no military action appears imminent. All nations acting in good faith should get more actively involved in seeking a peaceful solution to this conflict.

The second point on which the Bloc Quebecois must get the facts, and every member of this House should have sufficient information, is one that should lead the government to make public the legal basis for such military action. Actions taken by the United States, Canada and any coalition of nations could obviously have a moral or political basis.

No one, except those who have not understood and not properly read the Security Council resolutions, is disputing the fact that Iraq has, by its actions in recent years, violated both the spirit and the letter of the Security Council resolutions. There is, therefore, an obvious basis for any intervention that would arise as the result of the lack of diplomatic solutions and Iraq's refusal to settle this conflict through diplomatic channels.

The moral authority of those who wish to ensure that the Security Council's decisions are respected is undeniable as well. We do not deny that there is such a moral authority and political authority and that the moral and political basis cannot be disputed. But what can be said about the legal basis for the intervention being proposed by the United States, and seemingly desired by Canada as well, barring a peaceful and diplomatic settling of the dispute?

In the address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs a few minutes ago, he suggested that this basis lies in a resolution according to which any violation of Iraq's obligations under Security Council Resolution 687 would constitute a threat to international peace and security, and would consequently pave the way for intervention of a military nature.

That statement was insufficiently explained and documented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and some feel another Security Council intervention would be required. That Council would have to specifically authorize the use of force in order to ensure compliance with the resolutions the United States and other countries consider to have been violated by Iraq.

We wish to see the government enlighten parliament and the hon. members of this House on the true legal basis for intervention and inform us as to whether it has sought legal opinions, whether it has in its possession legal opinions, or whether legal opinions have been provided to it by those desiring this intervention, the U.S. in particular, so that this House may be convinced that the Government of Canada, by committing to such intervention, is not violating international law and is not diminishing the authority of the United Nations. If military intervention by the United States, participated in by Canada, did diminish the authority of the United Nations, that authority and that decision might impact very badly on the future of the organization.

Like others, the Bloc Quebecois believes that Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with international obligations under United Nations resolutions. This is a head of state who without doubt deserves to be punished for his actions. However, as the famous diplomat Henry Kissinger expressed it with a Spanish proverb, and I quote: “Traveller, there are no roads. Roads are made by walking”.

The Government of Canada has no—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pardon me, the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Laval East.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Madam Speaker, this evening's debate on the possibility of a war with Iraq is certainly not an easy one. We must consider all the effects of the decision the Canadian government is preparing to take in this conflict.

Yesterday's request by the U.S. government that the Government of Canada support a military intervention against Iraq is fraught with consequence. It would likely take, for the moment at least, the form of help in the areas of transportation and search and rescue teams.

The position of the Bloc Quebecois is clear. We favour a resolution of this conflict by diplomatic means first, and in full compliance with the UN resolutions. The President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, must comply with the resolutions of the UN requiring him to totally dismantle his arsenal of mass destruction. Every diplomatic effort must be made to avoid this catastrophe.

Should the resolution of the conflict be through military intervention, the Bloc considers that a decision in this regard must be made with the approval of the security council, as it was in 1991. Because it is the UN Security Council that deals with issues relating to world peace and security.

Should it decide to act without the Security Council's approval, Canada would send the message that we can do without the UN and not comply with international law and treaties.

However, should the United Nations, through the Security Council, agree to military intervention, we would then have to decide on the nature of Canada's military contribution. Would it be similar to the one in the 1991 conflict, or would it be of a more aggressive nature? This is another important issue that should be debated in this House. It goes without saying that I hope we do not have to get to that stage.

The Bloc Quebecois firmly believes that, in the reply Canada will soon have to give to the United States, our country should demand that any military action be first and foremost authorized by the UN Security Council. Canada must protect the credibility, the authority and the supremacy of the United Nations, which is the only authority in this matter.

To fully understand today's debate, it must be remembered that it was in the aftermath of the Gulf War that the UN Security Council ordered Iraq to unconditionally destroy all its weapons of mass destruction, both chemical and bacteriological, and its ballistic missiles.

In addition to not complying with over 30 UN resolutions, Iraq will trigger a conflict by refusing to let inspectors from the UN special commission conduct inspections and destroy the stockpiles of weapons located on certain presidential Iraqi sites.

Tonight's debate deals essentially with two issues: to preserve peace and to promote disarmament throughout the world.

By tradition, Canada's foreign policy pursues objectives that seek to promote peace. For decades, Canada has been trying to project the image of a country dedicated to maintaining peace and security. Our peacekeepers have been sent to many regions where conflicts were raging, for the purpose of helping to restore and to preserve world peace. Providing defensive resources to resolve the Iraqi conflict would jeopardize everything Canada has worked so hard to accomplish in this regard.

With its success in the case of the land mines treaty, Canada has played a leadership role with respect to disarmament. As we have already said in the House, ratification of this treaty has not and will not resolve the problem of disarmament. Much remains to be done regarding heavy, conventional, small or light weapons. But let us point out that, for Canada to play an active role in an armed conflict would, once again, be contrary to the objectives pursued for years now.

Canada is not, however, as pure as the driven snow when it comes to disarmament. The annual report on Canada's military exports states that, in 1996, exports to countries such as Indonesia, China, India and Algeria increased.

Although the overall value of Canada's military exports went down in 1996, exports to low and middle income countries have, to all intents and purposes, doubled during the same period, increasing from 8% to 14%. These figures are the proof that much remains to be done, even in Canada, to disarm the planet and set the stage for real world peace.

In the conflict that concerns us, negotiations must therefore be stepped up, and in this regard the Bloc Quebecois feels that the Canadian government has not made all the necessary efforts. These negotiations must therefore be stepped up so that a negotiated settlement can be reached. World order cannot allow such a conflict. Hostilities could worsen with unimaginable consequences for people, with Iraq favouring bacterial and chemical weapons to defend its territory. Such weapons, we must remember, are inexpensive to produce and, unlike nuclear weapons, require little storage space and so may be easily hidden. These indiscriminating weapons are launched without warning and affect both innocent civilians and military personnel.

The problem we now encounter with Iraq could one day arise with the growing powers of developing countries. We even know that certain governments are trying to acquire or already have the technology that affords them inexpensive deterrence capabilities and that can be used forcibly anywhere in the world against any country.

In closing, I consider the possibility of a conflict with Iraq very serious. I hope that it may be resolved in terms of the sharing of the burden, if the decision is the UN's alone. However, the Bloc's basic position is that diplomatic efforts should be made to find a peaceful solution to the conflict.