Debates of Feb. 9th, 1998

Middle East

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to have the opportunity to rise this evening to address the question of the invitation to Canada by the United States of America to participate in possible military actions in the Middle East before—and I emphasize before—a decision is made by this government.

Sound and reasoned arguments must be made and responded to. The consequences are too great.

On occasion, critics question the role of members of Parliament, suggesting that they do little to earn their remuneration. To such detractors I say stand in our shoes this evening as we deliberate Canada's role in this impending crisis with Iraq, as we consider the possible involvement of the well trained, loyal and brave men and women of our armed forces and, just as important, the impact on the families of our service personnel: wives, children, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers.

Let us also not forget the innocent civilian population in Iraq who could suffer because of the folly of their leader. Let us be mindful of the cost of war in human terms, in economic terms and in ecological terms.

The responsibility of committing Canada to a military response to the current crisis in the gulf is a heavy onus, a commitment that could jeopardize world security, that could lead to war, possibly a third world war if Russian rhetoric can be believed. This onus is most formidable.

We recall the tremendous Canadian contribution to the gulf war in the winter of 1991 when 3,837 Canadian men and 237 Canadian women served with distinction. We are grateful that there was not a single Canadian casualty or prisoner of war taken during that conflict. Tonight I find myself asking, would we be so fortunate a second time?

How have we arrived at the brink once again?

The international community has generally backed the United States in its struggle to get Iraq to comply with agreements and orders issued at the end of the gulf war in 1991. More recently, the United States has had trouble rallying support from its former gulf war allies on military strategy for more air strikes.

Iraq began this latest round of tension by refusing to deal with the United Nations weapons inspection teams as long as the teams included Americans. After weeks of exchanging words with Iraq, the United Nations gave up in mid-November and pulled its teams out of the country.

After negotiations involving Russia, France and other countries, the inspectors returned to Iraq, but continued to face day to day frustrations. Weapons inspectors are checking for the presence of weapons of mass destruction, including those linked to biological, chemical and nuclear warfare.

Baghdad believes the weapons inspection process is taking far too long. Iraqis accuse the Americans on the multinational team of being spies.

Until the weapons inspections are finished, the United Nations will not lift economic sanctions against Iraq. Those trade barriers have been in place since August 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. We have arrived at a stalemate.

What do we fear? We fear Hussein, a dictator, a leader of a regime that has no respect for human rights and human values and who has brutalized his own citizens, including the use of poison gas against dissident Kurds and who has no hesitation in risking the safety and security of Iraqi citizens once again for his own purposes. We fear a regime that is alleged to have tested germ warfare agents on prisoners and refuses United Nations inspectors access to dispel such reports.

We fear a regime that launched a germ warfare program and is said to have stockpiled an arsenal of biological weaponry, a host of lethal viruses, bacteria and deadly toxins, the victims of which would suffer a horrible death and again a regime that refuses to let United Nations weapons inspectors conduct their work to dispel such reports.

We fear a regime that over the years has been caught with evidence of continuing efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and again refuses to let the United Nations weapons inspectors conduct their work to confirm such weapons do not exist.

Let us make no mistake, diplomacy rather than military power to end the crisis is the preferred solution, the solution we hope for and the solution we pray for. Canada has an enviable and well earned reputation as a peacekeeper. In the tradition of Lester Pearson, the role of warrior may be somewhat alien but it is one that we are capable of and will not shirk from.

We must be more than thorough in our deliberations. Are there compromises and positions that we have not explored? Could the UN consider lifting humanitarian sanctions which have adversely and sadly affected the civilian population of Iraq and which have led to death and disability for innumerable men, women and children, a record that I am not proud of.

Can we do this without jeopardizing the resolve, strength of purpose and unity in having Hussein comply with the United Nations resolutions which we deem so necessary? Are we satisfied that they are so necessary? Can Canada take an active role to negotiate a solution satisfactory to all? We have done much but can we not do more? Can we not work harder to prevent this pending conflict, to promote a peaceful resolution. All diplomatic measures must be explored and explored to the point of exhaustion. But if it fails, military action should be supported under the United Nations umbrella.

Canada respects the United Nations. Canada respects international laws. Canada respects agreements signed thereunder. Unfortunately Saddam Hussein does not. Under the United Nations security council resolution 687 of April 1991 which set out the ceasefire terms for ending the gulf war, Iraq is obliged to “accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of all its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles with a range of over 150 kilometres; and research, development and manufacturing facilities associated with the above; and to undertake not to develop such weapons in the future”. One might say that is not terribly difficult to comply with.

Despite constant Iraqi deceit, concealment, harassment and obstruction, the United Nations Special Commission, UNSCOM has succeeded in destroying 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 litres of live chemical weapon agents, 48 operational missiles, 6 missile launchers, 30 special warheads for chemical and biological weapons, and hundreds of items of chemical warfare production equipment. Iraq originally claimed that much of it was for peaceful use but later admitted its real purpose.

Iraq claimed that the VX nerve gas project was a failure. UNSCOM discovered that Iraq had the capability to produce VX on an industrial scale and produced four tonnes. Work was also going into numerous other agents such as sarin, tabun and mustard gas. I could go on and on with examples of Iraq's blatant violations of its ceasefire terms.

UNSCOM is concerned that Iraq may still have operational scud type missiles with chemical and biological warheads. Critical missile components, warheads and propellants are not accounted for nor are 17 tonnes of growth media for biological warfare agents, enough to produce more than three times the amount of anthrax Iraq admits it had. Key items of chemical warfare production equipment are also missing.

The question is can Hussein be trusted. The answer is terribly obvious. In the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, “There is a clear and present danger. Hussein's flagrant violation of the United Nations and international law is intolerable, unacceptable and must cease”. If Saddam Hussein refuses to comply with the United Nations security council resolutions, he must be held responsible and accountable for the pending action.

We earnestly seek a compromise, a negotiated settlement, a diplomatic solution. Yes, we wish to avoid war and we must earnestly work to achieve these ends. If this is not possible, Hussein must know that Canada will stand united with the UN forces. We must be prepared to act and if action is necessary, we will.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and as the official opposition deputy critic for foreign affairs to participate in this debate concerning the crisis in Iraq. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for St. Albert. From now on all my colleagues will be sharing their time.

Today the issues with respect to Iraq are should we accept or reject the United States' offer and what to do if reasonable diplomatic and peaceful efforts fail. This serious issue has many implications: political, economic, military and above all, it has human and moral effect.

We should all take note of the problem that we have very few facts to deal with in this debate.

We need more information from our government so that we can all effectively debate this issue.

There is a history and pattern of terrorism, lies and betrayal by Saddam Hussein who has consistently tried to destabilize the Persian Gulf.

Canada has been involved in the Persian Gulf since 1990 in a meeting with the United Nations Security Council to ensure a clear and effective international response to Iraqi aggression.

We have supported various international sanctions against Iraq. In 1991, we made a commitment to the multilateral force that defeated Iraq and enforced conditions of peace on Iraq.

In October 1997, the American members of the United Nations weapons inspection teams were ordered out of Iraq. The terms of peace were broken.

I have a long list of historical facts but since my time is limited, I will skip them.

Last month, weapons inspection teams were blocked from 72 sites in Iraq. Fourteen of these sites were inspected since. We know there have been some 40 sites in Iraq that have been declared as presidential palaces since the gulf war. There is no reasonable explanation beyond weapons sites in a country that has had its wealth severely curtailed since the gulf war.

It has been confirmed that Iraq has manufactured and stocked chemical and biological weapons. Iraq has significant stocks of anthrax, VX nerve gas, botulinum and anflatoxin. It is such dangerous stuff I cannot even pronounce it, but I know it can kill millions of people.

Saddam has used chemical weapons on his own people, the Kurds, during the Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988. By 1989 the Iraqi ambassador to Kuwait stated that Iraq has enriched uranium. The world has reasonable grounds to assume that Saddam Hussein will use these weapons.

Iraq has a history of destabilizing peace activities. Iraq invaded Iran, Kuwait and attacked Israel. We, the Canadians, are not against Iraqi people. We know they are victims of Saddam Hussein, his weapons, his dictatorship, United Nations sanctions and the war.

We are concerned about human life and human suffering because there is human life on both sides of the issue whether Iraq is attacked or not. We are also aware that the lives of Canadian soldiers are also at stake if we commit our military support.

We have to carefully see if this risk is outweighed or not. This could have been done if the Liberal government had shown leadership and had taken a position. Then it could amend it after the debate.

The Leader of the Official Opposition had to fill in that vacuum. Before we commit our support, we must meet the six point criteria as our leader mentioned. So far, we meet three of those criteria.

There is a serious international threat and it seems that the diplomatic efforts are failing. Second, there is multinational support for military action and, third, our role can be within our fiscal and military capabilities, but we do not know yet if government is satisfied with the strategy. What is the mission and plan for the military action and what is the command and control structure? Is it satisfactory?

We know certainly that we need more information from this government. Canada must support and co-operate as requested in order to ensure that the original United Nations resolution 687 that Iraq agreed to following the Persian Gulf war continues to be respected by Iraq.

We support a diplomatic solution to the crisis caused by Iraq. That is plan A. Everything that can be done should be done to ensure that a diplomatic solution is reached. Failing that, we go to plan B and that plan is military intervention.

We want a solution that avoids all bloodshed and loss of human life, pain and suffering. That is plan A. By declaring our willingness to go to plan B, we are sending a strong message to Iraq. That message is that it either negotiates a solution diplomatically, fairly and peacefully or the crisis will be solved by military might.

There still remains a chance that a diplomatic solution can be reached. Lieutenant-General Amer al-Saadi said that the discussions have been constructive, very open and realistic, and therefore he pleads for more time.

We should be sure there is reasonable time for these talks to continue and be completed before a military intervention. I hope Saddam Hussein will yield to the military pressure and back off. I really hope he does, at least for the sake of the innocent people.

Iraq will either stop producing weapons of mass destruction through diplomacy and agreement or Iraq will stop producing weapons of mass destruction by force.

I firmly support the Canadian obligation to ensure that Iraq complies fully with the United Nations resolution regarding Iraq.

Canada has a long tradition of leading the world in peacemaking and peacekeeping. We have given a great deal of assistance in negotiating diplomatic solutions around the world. We have always participated in the most significant international efforts. Recently we have much to be proud of in this regard. We have spearheaded an international land mine ban treaty, we have assisted in Rwanda, Haiti and Bosnia.

The world knows Canada as a peace loving, diplomatic nation. If we show support for the U.S., Britain and our allies in the Persian Gulf, as we have been asked, the world will take notice. As a nation we want to strive to stand firmly with our traditional allies for the cause.

We have been asked by the United States to provide transportation support and search and rescue support in a non-combative role. This should be left to the military experts to determine and not to the politicians.

I urge that while committing our support, Canada should become active in pursuing a diplomatic solution as well and show leadership.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I often wonder why every few years we stand to debate the most serious of issues facing any democracy. That of course is whether we should commit our men and women to defend the principles in which we believe.

We believe in democracy, which of course is the right of people to choose their own government. We know that in Iraq there is no democracy. The people have no right to choose their own government. But that is not sufficient for us to become involved in a military adventure on the other side of the world.

We believe in free speech and free expression. We know they do not exist in Iraq today. But again, that is not sufficient for us to become involved.

We believe in individual freedom and opportunity, and we know that the people of Iraq today have a life that is anything but free. There is no opportunity. Life in Iraq is quite bleak. But again, I do not believe that is any reason for us as Canadians to become involved in a military adventure over there.

We expect our leaders to serve their people. Saddam Hussein is a dictator. He does not serve his people. He uses them and he abuses them. He has starved the children of his country, and for that we have to be concerned.

We have the right to protect ourselves, our families and our children. When that is at risk we do have the right to defend ourselves.

Saddam Hussein has demonstrated in the past that he has the capacity to attack. He has attacked his own people. He has demonstrated his capacity to attack a foreign country. We have seen that through his invasion of Kuwait. We have seen that through the scud missile attacks on Israel. Unfortunately he has also demonstrated that he wants to have the capacity to do it again because of his failure to abide by UN resolution 687.

He has continued to develop biological, chemical and perhaps even nuclear weapons. He could attack us with these weapons. That is why we must be concerned, and that is why we must think about defending ourselves, even though we are on the other side of the world. Unfortunately those kinds of weapons can be transported quite easily. We are not without risk. But first things first.

First is diplomacy, diplomacy with strength to lead us away from war, not toward war. Unfortunately I see diplomatic effort being used today to justify the use of force, not to avoid the use of force as we listen to the words of the secretary of state for the United States, where she is promising and guaranteeing that unless there is some resolution in the very near future there will be force.

I can understand the frustration of the United States in its efforts to enforce UN resolution 687 to remove the weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. I compliment our neighbours and friends to the south who have worked so hard and so diligently to protect the free world for the last number of decades, and how they have tried to ensure that Iraq abides by this resolution. I know they have reached impasse. I know they have reached failure at this point in carrying out their mission.

We must remember that it is a United Nations resolution, not a United States resolution, that is to be enforced.

As we are debating this issue of war and peace in the House tonight, I ask whether this issue of war and peace is being debated in the United Nations tonight. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, the answer is no. Is our foreign minister at the United Nations trying to build support for an attack on Iraq? Unfortunately the answer is no. Are the Americans calling on the United Nations and the Arab countries to apply even more pressure on Iraq so it will see the error of its ways and abide by the resolution and back down from the eyeball to eyeball confrontation? It appears to be, unfortunately, no.

If we are so concerned on this side of the world, where are the fears of the neighbours of Iraq? I know they have some concerns. Surely if the United Nations is to work properly we should be able to expect a great deal more support for this type of military venture we are contemplating than the coalition that has been put together so far.

When I look at the United Nations, I think that international institutions have a role to play in the world. If they are ignored, they become irrelevant and the world is a more dangerous place because of that.

If our international organizations do not work, we should fix them. We do not ignore them. We do not bypass them. We do not throw them away. We fix them.

This evening I think we should hear a voice of caution. When we are threatened, we have the right to retaliate. We should use force only when we are forced to and we should attack only when we are attacked.

We are threatened today by the tools of mass destruction that we know are in Iraq. Before we use force to resolve this issue, before we attack Iraq to hopefully bring this issue to a resolution, I think the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Germany and every other country that believes in democracy and decries dictatorship in any country around the world should be standing in the United Nations enlisting the support of the entire world before taking the fateful next step. The fateful next step is not just an attack on Iraq but what happens after that if Saddam Hussein survives and decides to retaliate against us.

We must think about that because we know he is a dangerous person.

We know he is prepared to throw his troops to the wind. We know he is prepared to sacrifice everything for his own personal objectives and we know that if we think that we can remove some but not all the chemical and biological weapons and he survives, he will live to fight another day.

The world will be a safer place when Saddam Hussein is gone, but I think it will also be a safer place when the western world with its democratic positions can work within the international institutions and work toward peace, not war.

As we contemplate war here this evening, I hope peace is uppermost on the minds of all leaders of all the western world and all the democratic countries that strive to serve the people, not lead them into another military venture where the outcome at this time is far from certain.

Caution. I said earlier that we threaten when we are threatened. We can use force when we are forced to. And we can attack when we are attacked. But we should be careful and think it through. Diplomacy in the end, when it works, is always the best way to do it.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Cambridge.

The purpose of the debate tonight is to determine if Canada should take part in yet another air strike against Iraq.

I remember a debate we had in this House seven years ago, at about the same time, in January. We then supported the UN, because the world community was behind the mission. Our actions were based on the UN resolution to defend Kuwait against an Iraqi invasion. We saw what the results of that mission and its aftermath were.

Today, the United States is asking Canada to join with Great Britain and Germany in an action against Iraq. The situation is not all that clear, because we know full well that several of the countries who took part in the 1991 mission have not given their support this time around. These countries would prefer a UN-led effort to a U.S. initiative supported by a few allies.

We are told that diplomatic measures have failed. I just want to point out what has been achieved in the past few years thanks to the diplomatic measures the United States is decrying.

First of all, the inspectors who travelled to Iraq detected more that 2,000 violations they were able to straighten out, twice as many as during the Gulf War with Iraq in 1991. One has to wonder why some people are so anxious to speed up the process when peaceful measures could be taken to avoid killing people as we did in 1991 and to avoid the consequences of that conflict, which have been so harmful to the children of that part of the world.

Mr. Richardson, the US ambassador to the UN, said that he was losing patience. What a strange statement coming from a man who is supposed to promote peaceful, diplomatic solutions. He said he was losing patience.

It seems to me that, when we are dealing with a conflict in which the lives of thousands of people are at stake, we should not lose patience. We should if possible look for diplomatic means to avoid another massacre like the 1991 attack against Iraq, and especially against its children.

The point I want to make, not only to members of this House, but to those who are watching, is: where is the consistency in our policy? Canada is recognized throughout the world as a peaceful country that tries to find solutions. Even at home, we show a great deal of tolerance, we negotiate and we come up with solutions.

One wonders which UN resolutions are the most important ones. They should all have the same importance; all resolutions are important. A large number of other resolutions were also adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly. Take, for example, Resolution 242 dealing with the Middle East, and Resolutions 338 and 425, on Lebanon's integrity and independence. These resolutions provide that foreign forces in Lebanon, such as the Syrian and the Israeli forces, should leave. These UN resolutions were adopted years ago. Yet, neither the United Nations nor Great Britain seem in a hurry to tell the aggressors in Lebanon that a resolution is in effect and that they must leave. So, one wonders.

I can also think of the resolutions concerning Cyprus, southern Lebanon, the west coast and the Gaza Strip, where facilities are not supposed to be there. Yet, even now, these resolutions are not being implemented. One wonders. If all resolutions are equally important, why was the situation in the Middle East allowed to deteriorate for more than ten years? Do you think that countries in the Middle East are not closely watching the United States, Great Britain and other European countries wondering if they will deploy their huge forces to bomb them? There are other resolutions that are completely ignored.

Canada is recognized around the world as a peaceful country, which sends out troops to maintain peace. That is our role. We should be involved in a diplomatic mission, not a mission to bring more destruction to this part of the world that has known nothing else in the past 30 years. The fact that the role played by Canada is one that is admired by countries around the world and that solutions should always be sought through diplomacy must be taken into consideration. Solutions should not be decided on the basis of what suits certain countries.

For far too long in the Middle East, people have had little confidence that Western democracies really wanted to help resolve their problems. Is it any wonder that they question our intentions? Which the countries around the world supplied Iraq with massive destruction weapons in the past, when they were at war with Iran? Which countries sold these weapons? Iraq and other countries in the Middle East certainly could not afford to produce such weapons. Arms suppliers to the Middle East were Western countries, including Great Britain and the United States.

Now, in an about-face, they decide to act on a number of UN resolutions and bring destruction again to their country. In light of the destruction that has taken place in the past seven or eight years, of the children that have suffered, of the embargo against Iraq, there is a limit.

It is very difficult to convince the people of the Middle East that the West wants peace, when they see the opposite. That is a point of view that must be re-examined. We ought to say that all United Nations resolutions must be implemented in the Middle East, not selected ones.

In closing, all that the United States would like from Canada is the use of our reputation. We are respected throughout the world, we have people's trust. Why would we want to lose that trust? The United States knows very well that a country of 29 million does not have the arms of destruction it does. We know very well that the U.S. is not counting on our weapons to settle the problems in the Middle East, Iraq in particular.

I am convinced that, with time, with diplomatic means, we will see that guys like Saddam Hussein, tyrants and monsters who have been created by the West, will be done away with by their own societies.

Let Canada keep its reputation as a country of peace, and let it not be a party to missions of destruction.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Gatineau for refreshing our memories with regard to who supported Iraq in the war against Iran.

I am pleased to rise today to debate the recent invitation to Canada by the United States of America to participate in possible military action in the Middle East. While I understand what our American neighbours and allies are asking, I feel I do not have enough information to lend my support to what is being asked of us.

In the past I have supported requests for Canadian participation in peacekeeping missions but this is not a peacekeeping mission. This is a unilateral military action led by the United States against Iraq and supported by Britain.

Unlike the gulf war seven years ago, this proposed military operation is not in response to an Iraqi invasion of another country. As a matter of fact when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 it was six months later that a U.S. led a coalition against Saddam Hussein.

Why rush into this when diplomatic solutions are still a possibility? Seven years ago neighbouring Arab states supported the military offensive against Iraq. Today the very same Arab states, which are most at risk if Iraq continues to stockpile chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, do not support military action.

Clearly this is not an internationally sanctioned effort by the United Nations. France, a major European country which seven years ago took part in the U.S. coalition against Iraq, has distanced itself from a possible military strike. Russia and China, two large and important members of the security council, have in recent days made strong statements against waging war against Iraq.

Were this an internationally sanctioned effort by the United Nations I would be more likely to support our involvement. I share the frustrations of American and British allies who have been unable to resolve the Iraqi situation with diplomatic efforts. I share their concerns that a madman like Saddam Hussein has been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. I agree that the world must act to address the problem, but it would be preferable if the world agreed on a common course of action.

After all, will not the dropping of American and British bombs on chemical and biological weapons release the very same chemicals into the air, harming or even killing innocent civilians, especially children? Perhaps other efforts should be undertaken before we proceed with military action.

I understand that some of the Arab states have been trained to negotiate an agreement whereby a second UN inspection team, one that is not as offensive to the Iraqi government, could be appointed to inspect those sites which the American land team is being precluded from accessing. Perhaps this is another diplomatic measure which should be considered.

However I firmly believe that the decision to launch attacks on Iraq should be taken by the United Nations Security Council and not by the White House. We live in an international community whereby the actions of one nation can impact on the lives of many. Unfortunately there appears to be little consensus among many of our allies.

This morning I received a copy of a letter to the prime minister from the Islamic Humanitarian Service. Its head office is located in my riding. In the letter it stated that Saddam Hussein, the tyrant, will be unaffected personally if military attacks are carried out. However innocent civilians will be the biggest victims of such an attack. In recent days the French foreign minister has made similar comments. The problems of starvation and disease will be intensified while Saddam Hussein will continue to live in comfort.

They are absolutely correct. Ordinary people have suffered since the gulf war in 1991 but Saddam continues to live in luxury.

The Islamic Humanitarian Service appealed to the prime minister to oppose the whims of the United States. They have asked that Canada maintain an independent foreign policy and stay out of the conflict. This is the message I have been hearing all day from constituents in my riding of Cambridge. I share their view.

Let us not rush into sending our brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces into a war before all diplomatic solutions have been exhausted. Unless there is a decision by the United Nations Security Council to proceed with military force against Iraq, Canada should not contribute troops or be part of it for oil or anything else.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has an obligation to support our allies in stopping terrorism by Saddam Hussein. Generally speaking Canadians do not have a clear picture of the weapons of mass destruction the United Nations has confirmed continue to exist in Iraq despite the fact that UN inspection units have destroyed 480,000 litres of chemical weapon agents, 30 chemical warheads, 38,000 chemical and biological weapons, 690 tonnes of chemical agents and 3,000 tonnes of chemical weapons ingredients.

Three months ago UN inspectors reported that there were still 200 suspected chemical and biological Iraqi manufacturing sites. Of those 100 would be biological facilities, 80 chemical facilities and 20 nuclear facilities.

UN inspectors confirmed the existence of an industrial scale VX nerve gas production facility, four tonnes of VX nerve gas—one drop can kill—anthrax, botulinum, aflatoxin inventories and the Al Hake biological weapons facility.

President Clinton of the United States had this to say on November 14 about the UN inspection teams: “These quiet inspectors have destroyed more weapons of mass destruction potential over the last six years than were destroyed in the entire gulf war”.

I could say more about all of this but I think what is clear is that we have a terrorist in Saddam Hussein who is producing weapons of mass destruction and he is prepared to use them. We know he is prepared to use them. He used chemical agents against Iranians and people in his own country.

While we all prefer a diplomatic solution, it is perhaps worthwhile to go back a bit in history and consider a statement Winston Churchill made in 1938:

If we do not stand up to the dictators now, we shall only prepare the day when we shall have to stand up to them under far more adverse conditions. Two years ago it was safe, three years ago it was easy and four years ago a mere dispatch might have rectified this position. But where shall we be a year hence?

That was in 1938. We know what happened in 1939.

In the U.K. a couple of weeks ago the House of Commons noted that Saddam now has enough anthrax to fill two warheads every week. He is continuing to receive missile components and may soon be able to produce long range missiles. There is no room for compromise here. Diplomacy will only work if Saddam Hussein's evasions stop.

When I speak of committing the Canadian military to support our allies to stop terrorism, I do so with the clear thought in my mind for the military personnel and their families, people such as those in Canadian Forces 19 Wing in Comox in my riding. The military stands ready to carry out missions assigned by Canada.

There is a clear message in all of this for Canadians. We must give our military the resources they require to carry out the missions we demand of them. These missions from time to time are going to require combat capability.

I recognize that there are some widespread concerns within our military and we should not bury these concerns in these debates.

Skilled Canadian forces personnel in some categories such as pilots and technicians are being lost faster than they are being replaced due to active recruiting and substantially higher pay in the private sector. There is concern and uncertainty about the future strength of the military and viability of some military occupations and trades. Continued downsizing has led to a belief that more bad news is on the horizon.

Frequent deployments in hazardous and difficult theatres of operation away from spouse and children have adversely affected individuals and families. I believe if we are going to ask our professional military to carry out combat operations, that Canada owes it to our military to provide them with the resources they require to do their jobs. That should be our caveat. The military put their lives on the line and they need and deserve our collective support.

I have to ask myself why would Saddam Hussein produce four tonnes of VX nerve gas when one drop can kill? Why would he produce 8,400 litres of anthrax when less than one one-millionth of a gram can kill?

Why would Saddam Hussein, despite the fact that Iraq had signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, put himself in a position to produce a nuclear bomb by 1993 if the gulf war had not intervened?

Why would Saddam Hussein refuse to fully document missiles until 1996, five years after it was required? And why does Saddam Hussein continue to produce contradictory and unreliable reports on chemical and biological weapons for the UN inspection team?

We all appreciate the fact that when all else fails, our military is asked to pick up the pieces. The current situation in Iraq may lead to a particularly nasty circumstance which everyone would prefer to avoid. We have a moral obligation and it is in the national interest to stop terrorism. The military is the instrument and agent of last resort if diplomacy fails.

There is no doubt we are facing a serious international threat. We must focus on getting Saddam Hussein's weapons factories out of business and allowing UN inspectors to do their job.

I have some difficulty in concluding my remarks because I am left with an empty feeling in the pit of my stomach. If only the world were full of reasonable people we could entertain a reasonable solution. History tells us that the world simply is not like that. That is why our military and our military tradition is so important.

It is much easier to debate this issue in the House of Commons than it is for a military family to say goodbye to a member of the service departing for a combat mission. Let us hope it does not come to that but let us be absolutely prepared if it does.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to contribute to this debate on the potential role for the Canadian forces against Iraq. As Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition critic for veterans affairs and based on my own military experience, I am sensitive to the nature of Canada's military involvement against Iraq.

Canada was built by immigrants from around the globe. Who better than Canada to defend world peace. Canada was one of the first signatories to membership in the United Nations and we are most admired internationally for our peacekeeping role in international conflicts. This peacekeeping role has been assumed notwithstanding significant inadequacies in funding to our military forces.

Our military performed admirably in the first gulf war. Our Canadian Armed Forces are ready, willing and able to serve with distinction and honour once again. Canada is willing to support the United States and Britain in addressing concerns associated with global security. Our neighbour to the south has long been a major defender of world peace and is deserving of our respect and support but first we wish to list the criteria for involvement.

Criteria are required to assist in deciding how Canada should respond to requests for our participation in military operations to establish or maintain peace in the world; that diplomatic efforts to resolve it have failed; that there is multinational support for military action; that there is a workable strategy for military action to resolve the issue; that the plan includes a clear definition of Canada's role; that the role expected of Canada is within our military capacity; and that there is a command and control structure satisfactory to Canada.

Canada has an obligation to support its allies in stopping terrorism by Saddam Hussein. Our support should be military as well as moral and political. The focus of our military actions should be on putting Saddam Hussein's weapons factories out of business and allowing UN inspectors to do their work. 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. The reason for supporting military action is our moral obligation and our national interest in stopping terrorism and war on innocent civilians.

We must be mindful that our Canadian forces may once again be exposed to chemical and biological contaminants during the course of the mounting conflict and that such exposure may have far reaching and longstanding effects on their health.

Ask Louise Richard what unknown dangers await in the battles of the gulf region. Louise was a member of the Canadian forces in the first gulf war and today, in her early thirties she is debilitated by multiple health problems believed to be gulf war syndrome. While Louise acknowledges there are necessary risks taken by our military when serving in battle, she is disappointed of the current government's inability to help our veterans with the problems they are now left with.

Many of our gulf war veterans have had to rely on other countries to aid in their treatment. This must not happen again. If we decide to send our men and women to battle, we must also assume the responsibilities associated with their health and well-being when they return home. Ms. Richard who suffered as a veteran of the gulf war still agrees that risks must be taken to stop war's tyrants.

Iraq, defeated in the gulf war, committed crimes against its citizens and others and had to be stopped. Part of the terms of the ceasefire was to accept the monitoring and destruction of its weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, Saddam has not allowed this to happen and in fact has hidden an arsenal of warheads and chemical weapons. In the past, Saddam has used these chemicals of death against citizens of his country and others. The weapons must be destroyed and the capability to produce more be removed or there will forever be a threat to others.

It is very clear to me that an effective inspection for chemical and biological weapons could not be conducted without U.S. observers. I believe that political pride should be of secondary concern to the avoidance of the escalation of international military conflict. The only exception to this view would be where avoidance of international military conflict leads to the fruitless efforts at appeasement so well demonstrated by England's Neville Chamberlain before the commencement of World War II. We soon learned that there is no piece of paper to wave that will stop men like Saddam Hussein and Hitler.

Saddam lives by weight of arms and might. He will only submit to the same.

We have only to review the recent past threat and carnage unleashed by this committed tyrant of war seven short years ago. It was only the combined will of two dozen nations that clipped his military might and sent him home, but it left his chemical and biological threat alive. These two were scheduled for inspection and destruction until Saddam intervened once again. This is the threat that Saddam could build on to the point of regional threat again.

Saddam's legacy of 1991 in the mother of all wars left over 100,000 dead, oilfields set to torch, cities in ruins, his country in tatters. Yet seven years later the world might face more. Canada must do its part to stand and help extinguish this threat to the nations of the world in the name of world peace.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

I am pleased to take part in tonight's debate on a possible Canadian participation in military action against Iraq. I am convinced that my constituents realize the importance of this debate given what is at stake on the international scene.

Let us set this debate in its historical context. The last time Canada had to make a decision about whether or not to take military action in that part of the world was in 1991, in the Gulf war.

In 1991 an international coalition attacked Iraq after it had invaded the neighbouring kingdom of Kuwait. Canada's contribution was three ships, 24 CF-18 fighter bomber planes, one Boeing 707 tanker air craft and 1,830 Canadian Armed Forces personnel. As do many Canadians I believe that conflict was largely a measure to protect the world's supply of oil.

The question is why we are back in the same position as we were in 1991. Why are we contemplating putting our armed forces into Iraq? The answer is clear. Iraq is once again flaunting its disregard for international standards.

Let me make some distinctions. I am as aware as anyone of the political advantages to be gained by the United States in its domestic matters with another armed conflict. I cannot support those political considerations as a unique reason for risking Canadian military personnel and using Canadian military dollars.

We cannot forget that the basis of this situation is Iraq's refusal to co-operate with an agency of the United Nations. This agency was established as a condition for ending the Persian gulf war. Iraq is violating this condition and, worst of all, is endangering lives around the world through its production of biological weapons.

The Toronto Star made an interesting analysis in its coverage. According to the Star Iraq has passed up potential oil revenues totalling more than $100 billion since mid-1991 because it has refused to co-operate with the United Nations sponsored program to destroy its capacity for producing weapons of mass destruction.

Why would a country pass up that kind of revenue, especially a country where according to some organizations a child dies every 10 minutes due to malnutrition and disease? The implication is that the refusal to allow inspection by UN personnel is worth more than millions of dollars and worth more than those children's lives. If that is the case, this is a spine-chilling prospect for everyone on earth.

The United Nations commission charged with the disarmament of Iraq found chilling evidence of Iraq's intention regarding the production and stockpiling of biological weapons. As reported in the Chronique ONU , the special commission found proof that Iraq had obtained or was seeking the equipment and material necessary to produce biological weapons. Iraq was unable to provide a non-military justification for the equipment and materials.

On July 1, 1995 Iraq admitted to having established an offensive program of biological weapons, including the manufacture and stockpiling of large quantities of toxic agents. The commission also found that Iraq had not produced a reliable accounting of its military biological weapons. Until this accounting was provided, UNSCOM was unable to complete the mandate assigned by the security council.

For several months Iraq has refused to allow United Nations inspectors to continue their investigations. Iraq maintains that it has destroyed all the materials necessary to produce biological weapons by dumping them in the desert and has refused to allow UNSCOM inspectors to inspect the sites of suspected illegal weapons programs.

Iraq has couched this refusal in allegations that American members of the UN team were conducting illicit spying activities for the United States. Given the evidence of the special committee this refusal is suspect. That is the historical substantive context of the situation.

Let me move to the political context of Canada's potential role. There are several issues I would like to briefly mention. It is clear that a diplomatic resolution to this conflict is in everyone's best interest. While it is important to show the Iraqi government that the world supports the UN mandated commission, the citizenship of the inspectors is not a reason to risk Canadian personnel or use Canadian military dollars. I suggest that we call the bluff of the Iraqi and the Americans and send in other inspectors.

I understand that the Arab league, the Soviet Union and other influential bodies are working toward a diplomatic solution. I firmly believe that we cannot in all good conscience move any further toward an armed conflict without exhausting all diplomatic avenues.

Second, I would like to briefly discuss the specific mandate of the Canadian armed forces. The United States is asking merely for logistical support from the Canadian forces—nothing more, nothing less. Clearly the United States is trying to legitimize a military intervention. As in 1991, the Canadian contribution will not be innumerable weapons and war machines.

Since the white paper, the Canadian armed forces have bet on their role as peacekeepers. If we take part in this conflict, what kind of message will we be sending? Is this the way we want to spend our defence budget? I have no answer to these questions, but they are certainly relevant in the current debate on Canada's possible participation in the Persian Gulf.

I cannot sufficiently underscore the fact that the community of nations Canada belongs to must wager on a negotiated solution to the current impasse, otherwise we will be facing armed intervention.

I would like to point out that the lack of consensus among the Arab countries on military intervention in Iraq means that Canada must carefully consider its conflict resolution options. Caution is the watchword.

As I said earlier, Canadians are aware that Saddam Hussein's regime is ill-intentioned. Some oppose the production of weapons of mass destruction, biological and others, by Saddam Hussein. The objective is not disputed, but the means to achieve it require some thinking.

Some of my constituents told me of their concerns about the political situation in the Middle East. While they approve the objective, which is to prevent the production and the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction, some are concerned that a military intervention could trigger a conflict that would go beyond the Middle East region. Others wonder about the effectiveness of the various measures being considered by the international community to stop the production and the stockpiling of such weapons.

I understand these concerns. Again, a military intervention may be necessary, but the current situation requires that we conduct an in-depth review. I hope this debate will help us make the appropriate decisions.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on the possible intervention of Canadian troops in the military strike against Iraq.

Yesterday President Clinton requested Canada's support in this initiative by way of transportation and search and rescue.

The intervention of our military forces in this situation is of grave concern to all Canadians. I am pleased the government has decided to have a debate on this crisis.

Throughout our history Canada's relationship with the United States has been based on partnership and co-operation. We have been supportive of our friend and our neighbour. In 1991, as a part of the United Nations contingent, Canadian troops provided logistic support in the gulf war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

We are a humanitarian nation and historically we have participated in the solving of crises in the world through peaceful measures. Our humanitarianism and our strong commitment to peace have enabled us to be a model to the world.

This is the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights, and in this year we see a leader trampling on the human rights of his people.

The situation we are debating tonight is also about human rights. Canadians place a high value and have respect for individuals and their right to live in dignity. To act contrary to this value concerns many Canadians. We understand the frustration in dealing with Saddam Hussein and his chemical and biological weapons, tools of mass destruction, refusing to follow through on the UN security council resolution 687 of April 1991.

War is a fundamental threat to human life and every effort is to be made not to allow this threat to become a reality. Whether through the stories we hear from our parents or grandparents or through television footage or history books, we are horrified and are constantly reminded about the human sufferings of war.

In the riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore I have constituents from various war torn parts of the globe who have expressed to me the horrors of war and its effect on their lives. They have experienced firsthand the consequences of war, the anguish, the tremendous pain and the suffering of families.

A decision to use military means to solve the problem of Saddam Hussein is not to be taken lightly.

On my recent visit with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to Bosnia I witnessed the environmental degradation that war brought to that nation. It will take some time before the three million or so land mines are removed from that country.

From December 2 to December 4, 1997 Canada took leadership on the banning of land mines. We recognize that these weapons of war cause great physical and emotional harm to persons who have been victimized by them. We know that hundreds of civilians were adversely affected by the gulf war in 1991. At present many are grossly malnourished and live in inadequate conditions as a result of the embargo.

The consequences of war are real and they can be averted through the actions of nations. It is the responsibility of the international community to take leadership in finding non-violent means to resolve crises in the world.

It is Canada's responsibility to provide moral leadership. Our nation can play its part by being tenacious in seeking out and exhausting all channels of foreign diplomacy under the auspices of the United Nations. This entails looking at the wide range of possibilities from the perspective of government and the perspective of the non-governmental agencies.

Taking lessons from Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King addressed conflicts in a peaceful manner.

Peace in the Middle East has been at the forefront of Canadian foreign policy. We have been working toward peace in that region through non-military means. We do not know of the far-reaching consequences of a military strike against Iraq to the peace process in that region. Nor do we know whether military action will achieve the desired result: ridding the world of Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

We know about the issue of compliance, allowing the inspectors to get into the areas where weapons of destruction are kept. Maybe we should be looking at an avenue for some other set of inspectors to participate.

I ask whether we have used up all peaceful resolution to this conflict. Have we used up all means at our command? Have we participated in every measure that is available to make sure that we deal with the crisis in our midst? War is costly and we must clearly examine the price before taking action.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of a story that a former member of this House used to tell when we were debating the nuclear arms race in the early 1980s. The former member for Saskatoon East, Father Bob Ogle, used to tell a story about two men in a room full of gasoline. One guy had two matches and the other guy had three matches, and the guy who had three matches thought he was safe.

I think there is a lesson in that for us here. Whenever we are engaged in a conflict, or whenever we are contemplating a conflict which has the potential that this conflict has, we need to realize that it may well be a situation, no matter what the outcome, in which there are no winners and losers but rather a situation in which everybody loses when we choose war as an alternative to diplomacy.

Having said that, I would like to pick up on what I take to be a very earnest and constructive suggestion that was made earlier by one of my colleagues, the member for Palliser, but which has also been made by some Liberal backbenchers. Have we exhausted all the diplomatic options here? It seems to me, unless I have it wrong, that a lot of this has its origin in the objection by Iraq to American inspectors.

Is it worth going to war over the constitution of these inspection teams? Is it not possible for the Americans to swallow their pride, take the chip off their shoulder, and for the rest of us, by having the Americans do that, to call Saddam Hussein's bluff and say if the American inspectors are the problem, we will have a team of inspectors without Americans? We could then see what he does and see whether there is an option here that has not been seriously considered because there is so much of the American ego wrapped up in whether they are allowed to participate in these inspection teams.

It is something that needs to be considered by the government and by other governments. I was glad to hear that coming from the other side of the House. It seems to me that is one element of a possible solution that needs to be explored further.

I waited until the small hours to get on the record to say a number of things. First, I think this is a question about which persons and members of Parliament of goodwill can disagree with each other because in the final analysis it is a matter of judgment. This is in some ways a hard call for anyone to make, as to what the response of the government should be. The position of the NDP was made quite clear by my leader earlier in the day.

What I want to do tonight is say what I think this is not about. It is not about one's feelings of loyalty or one's appreciation of Canada's contribution in past conflicts, or one's feelings about the Canadian Armed Forces and the roles it has played in various past conflicts or in peacekeeping. I have heard people get up and say these kinds of things, all of which I agree with. But the implication is that because we feel good about the things the Canadian Armed Forces has done, either in previous wars or in peacekeeping, to be critical of this particular suggestion would involve some kind of disloyalty to those institutions or lack of appreciation for what has gone on before.

Quite the contrary. I am sure that veterans across Canada, like anyone else today, are debating among themselves as to what the right course of action is. I am sure you could find veterans who feel the government is doing the right thing and veterans who feel the government is doing the wrong thing. We can probably find gulf war veterans who feel one way and other gulf war veterans who feel the other way.

So it is not a question of loyalty or appreciation of these institutions or of past conflicts. Indeed, as has been mentioned on a number of occasions, the American general who led the Americans in the gulf war in 1991 has expressed serious reservations about the advisability of proceeding to bomb Iraq and has raised the question, as others have, whether this simply would not be ineffective and in some ways play into Saddam Hussein's own plan.

I say also that this is not, from an NDP point of view, a question of taking a position rooted in an uncritical pacifism, although there may be people within our party and other parties who hold to a strictly pacifist position. I heard the member who just spoke refer to Mahatma Gandhi. I am sure Mahatma Gandhi being an absolute pacifist would have absolutely no use whatsoever for the government's position on this or for the American position on this.

But that is not the position from which we are arguing this day. As members will know, we have voted in the past and spoken in the past in favour of Canadian troops participating in various contexts, in Haiti, Rwanda and in a variety of contexts in which they might have had to engage in combat or in other forms of armed activity. We have not drawn back from that possibility when we felt that it was in the best interest of that particular country or a peace in that particular region.

Again I come back to the point that what we are really debating here in many respects is a question of judgment on the position the Americans are taking at this point which the government appears eager to approve although it is going through the motions of a parliamentary debate. We sort of woke up this morning to the secretary of state for the United States, Madam Albright, basically saying that Canada was already on board. I welcome this debate but it is hard to believe that the government really came into this debate with an open mind, that things were not already well in train.

It is a question of judgment and NDP judgment is that this proposal by the United States is not warranted and that such a proposal is even more to be criticized as so often is the case because it comes with such self-righteousness. I want to explain what I mean.

It seems to me these kinds of positions would be so much more credible if they came with a little mea culpa, if they came with a little history, if they came with a little acknowledgement of the role that the west has played in creating the situation we now face. I am thinking of a number of things that should be put on the record just so that in the end somebody might still want to argue that Canada should participate in a bombing of Iraq.

There are a number of things I would like to put on the record. For one thing, it was the west that armed Iraq to the teeth. I can remember earlier in my parliamentary life when it seemed that the west was rooting for Iraq when it was at war with Iran. There was no talk then of the evils of Saddam Hussein. There was no talk then of the danger of arming this madman of a dictator, and he was every bit as much a madman dictator then. It is just that then he was doing what we wanted him to do. I say we in the west sense. And now he is not.

One cannot help but feel there is a certain amount of hypocrisy. We need to be more consistent in our attitude toward people like Saddam Hussein and not just play politics when it suits our needs. We turn a blind eye to his nature and when it no longer suits our needs we are more accurate in our description of him and may even, when it suits us, magnify it.

I have heard a lot of talk this evening, particularly from the Reform Party, about trusting our allies. Why should we have some uncritical trust of our allies? That is not a Canadian tradition. It is not the tradition under which Lester Pearson operated when he questioned President Johnson on the Vietnam War. Should we have trusted our allies in Cambodia, in Vietnam, in Panama and in a variety of other situations? Just because we are allies of the United States in NATO does not mean that we have to be uncritical allies in everything else it does, that we have to share its perception of every problem that arises in the world. The one case in which we do not do that is with respect to Cuba.

Therefore there should not be this uncritical argument offered that we need to simply trust our allies. If we are allies and good friends then, as good friends will do, we need to be able to ask the tough questions of our good friends, whether this is the best course of action.

We hear a lot about the importance of the UN. I would feel a lot better about all of this if it were actually the UN asking Canada to participate in this. But it is not the UN, it is the United States. The call did not come from the secretary-general of the United Nations. The call came from President Clinton.

Here we are, seven years later after the last gulf war, in exactly the same position. The UN is no stronger. It is arguably weaker than it was then and at that time we were all able to identify the problem that the UN was not strong enough to act on its own and therefore had to almost contract out its work in that case to this coalition, a coalition which incidentally does not really exist any more because the agreement that existed at that time does not exist today. I think that is important to keep in mind when the government tries to give us the impression that it is simply following what the UN wants it to do based on resolutions with respect to the ceasefire that came out of the 1991 situation. The agreement that existed in 1991 clearly did not exist in the security council or on the rest of the world today.

Let us talk about the UN. One of the things the government could have been doing over the last several years is working to strengthen the UN. I am sure that is what the government has in mind but the fact is there have been no serious proposals for UN reform that would enable the UN to have a capacity of its own to deal with leaders like Saddam Hussein who chose to violate its resolutions.

Instead, seven years later we are still in the position of the UN's being so weak as to create a context in which the United States takes upon itself the determination of what the UN says will be enforced.

I argue that it is not just Saddam Hussein and others who are weakening the UN. Obviously by disobeying the UN this is to be deplored. However, what is also to be deplored is the way in which the United States has weakened the UN over the last 10 to 15 years by consistently refusing to meet its payments to fund the UN.

The attack on the UN comes from many directions and for many reasons. The last thing we need is anybody getting in the context now of wanting Saddam Hussein to respect UN resolutions, to get on their high horse about how much they love the UN.

I can appreciate that coming from Canada because I think Canada's record with respect to the UN is impeccable. I do not always agree with the positions we take there, but our support of the UN has been consistent. That cannot be said about the United States.

Let us not tolerate from our American friends a lot of self-righteousness about the United Nations because the United Nations comes under more criticism in the United States of America than almost any other place that I can think of.

Again, with respect to UN resolutions, I agree that UN resolutions should be enforced. One cannot help but get the impression that some resolutions are more important than others, that some resolutions have to be enforced. Other resolutions can just lay there collecting dust decade after decade after decade. There is no mobilizing of the international community to enforce these resolutions.

I say again, just a little humility when it comes to this so that we can avoid this sort of jingoistic, uncritical attitude which, as soon as we get into this kind of situation, all of a sudden our side, our civilization, we can do no wrong, we have always done things the right way, we have never done anything wrong, we are the good guys.

I think we are the good guys in comparison to Saddam Hussein, but we are not the good guys in the sense that we have contributed to the situation in which we now find ourselves in a variety of ways.

Again, with respect to the question of respecting international judgments, UN resolutions. We have a World Court ruling on nuclear weapons. Do I see the nations of the nuclear club of this world saying there is an international judgment? They have ruled nuclear weapons to be criminal, but no action on that front.

We saw the World Court rule that the mining of the harbour in Nicaragua was illegal. Did the United States pull up stakes and stop what it was doing in Nicaragua?

The list goes on and on and on of occasions when the United States has not shown respect for UN resolutions and for other international judgments that have been made about its behaviour.

That does not make what the United States wants to do in the case of Iraq wrong on the face of it or in principle. All I ask is just a little more humility when it comes to these things and some acknowledgement of the fact that when it comes to respecting international judgments, the Americans are very much in a position of not being in a position where they can rightfully cast the first stone.

There are a number of other things, the position of the Kurds. Any resolution of the Iraqi situation has to deal with the reality of the Kurdish people but we do not see any action on that front on the part of the Canadian government. Why? Because of our NATO ally, Turkey, which does not want to deal with the reality of the Kurdish people as a people.

Our hands are tied there with respect to the Kurds so that the Kurds, whether in Iraq, Iran or in Turkey, are being persecuted. Finally with respect to weapons of mass destruction, Iraq is not the only country with weapons of mass destruction. There are many countries with weapons of mass destruction.

What we need is a global arms control regime that will deal with this because surely the solution is not bombing every country that has weapons of mass destruction and will not get rid of them.

That is not the solution and may not be much of a solution from a scientific point of view because I am just a lay person when it comes to this. If there is anthrax stored somewhere, is bombing it a solution?

My idea of when things get bombed is that things explode and things get scattered all over the place. The idea of anthrax and everything else being scattered all over the place as a result of bombing does not seem to be a very good idea. We may very well be getting into a situation that we cannot anticipate.

That is all the more reason every possible avenue should be explored before a military solution is sought. We in the NDP do not feel that has been done which is why we are taking the position we are in Parliament today.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the days leading up to this take note debate, I had the occasion to discuss the possible participation of Canada in a military operation against Saddam Hussein with some of my constituents. I will share the fruit of those discussions with my colleagues.

I can say categorically that there is unanimity and a preference, as there seems to be in the House from the debate I have listened to tonight, for the use of diplomatic channels to solve this problem. We want to arrive at a solution by peaceful means. There is a keen desire to see an intensification of our efforts: bilateral, multilateral, at the United Nations, at the security council or wherever. We as a country, through our representatives the prime minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs who have a considerable positive reputation world-wide, should use whatever influence we can to promote diplomacy to arrive at a satisfactory resolution of this matter.

Some suggestions came forward in my discussions. Perhaps one of the more imaginative recommendations I heard was that the prime minister should offer the services of our foreign affairs minister as an honest broker with Baghdad to a country that might be more aligned with Iraq. This would be based on the considerable reputations that both the prime minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have achieved especially in recent months with the signing of the anti-mine treaty. I agreed to pass on this suggestion to the appropriate authorities.

I have heard this second suggestion from a few people, that Canada should encourage a lifting or a reduction in the sanctions currently imposed on Iraq. The Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated tonight that is one possibility that has been considered at the United Nations.

The suggestion we have heard most often this evening is that we should consider the make-up of the inspection teams. We could explore whether there is an opportunity to solve this lack of respect for the United Nations resolutions and agreements to which Iraq is a signatory by modifying the make-up of the inspection teams to be more amenable to Iraq.

These suggestions have already been mentioned tonight but I wanted to repeat them because these suggestions have come from my constituents.

The second conclusion that has emerged from my discussions is that there is certainly a preference that any Canadian participation be made under the authority of the United Nations, that we as a country should only participate in a military manner in a military strike against Saddam Hussein if the United Nations were to ask. I must admit at first blush that one might be inclined to agree with that motion as I was and as I may still be. But if one looks at the prevailing situation it becomes less obvious.

For instance, since 1991, and as late as November of 1997, the UN security council adopted resolutions signifying essentially that the non-compliance of Iraq was not acceptable and was tantamount to a threat. For weeks now U.S. secretary of state Albright has made numerous foreign visits to shore up support for a military intervention led by the United States. As a matter of fact, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party quoted the secretary of state quite clearly as saying that time is running out.

There has been a barrage of media coverage on this in the last weeks. It would be very difficult not to know of the intentions of the United States.

We have heard tonight many colleagues suggesting that we not participate unless it is at the express request of the United Nations. I would argue that might be a tad facile. The people who are either on the security council or who gravitate around the security council are intelligent. They are serious. They are knowledgeable about world affairs and current affairs. It would be very difficult to believe that if the people who make up the security council did not intend to let the United States proceed that they would not explicitly say so.

They have not said no. They have not told the United States to stop the sabre-rattling or to stop preparing for a military intervention. They have remained essentially silent. One could be justified in thinking that there is, at the very least, tacit support from the United Nations security council.

There is a saying in French which might be useful to reflect on: “qui ne dit mot consent”. “He who says nothing can sense”. That is the situation we are confronted with.

The United Nations is remaining silent on the fact that the Americans are preparing for a strike quite explicitly and quite openly, with repeated attempts by the secretary of state to shore up support. By not denouncing that, by not saying “We are not prepared to have the Americans lead a strike”, they are essentially supporting it. That might be a convoluted way of looking at things, but I believe it has some merit.

One thing which has emerged from the discussions is that if and when the time does come for action, even military action, with respect to the question of whether Canada should participate, reluctantly and unfortunately, more often than not, the answer was yes. It is not unanimous. There are people who believe that we should not participate. However, on the whole, the comments are “Unfortunately, yes”.

If such a time should come upon us, then we as a nation must live up to our own obligations, our international obligations, and perhaps even to our moral obligations.

Canada is not a neutral country. Time and again we have stood with our allies. In times of peace we stand with them in strategic alliances, in peacekeeping missions and so forth. In times of war we have stood beside them in the defence of our shared fundamental values. I believe that these values include the ability to live one's life in relative security, certainly secure from the deadly threat of biological or chemical weapons in the hands of a man such as Saddam Hussein.

I began my remarks by saying that there is unanimity in exploring every diplomatic means available to us. From the discussion I have listened to tonight, there seems also to be unanimity in the objective of removing from Saddam Hussein the ability to use these biological and chemical weapons. While we may have differing views as to how that should be achieved, we nonetheless agree in this House on that particular objective.

What we have here are escalating alternatives from moral suasion to sanctions to diplomacy. What alternative then is left if these do not bring the results we wish?

There is the threat of force and finally, the use of force. We are not there yet, but I believe I speak for the majority of my constituents when I say that if and when the time comes that the threat and use of force is required, Canada should stand firm with its allies and with the United Nations.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is never easy to go to war, especially for a country like Canada. Canada is known worldwide for being a peaceful country, for being a country that promotes peace, a country known worldwide for its recent land mine negotiations, a country and a flag that are well respected around the world for its peacekeepers.

We are being asked tonight to debate the issue as to whether Canada should support an international effort to send a message to Saddam Hussein. The message is that the world today does not accept the type of behaviour Saddam Hussein has expressed through his human rights abuses, through his deception, cheating and lies with the UN special commission investigating his weapons of mass destruction. It is a message that this world, the United Nations and all countries of the world do not accept his behaviour.

Who better should the international community call on but Canada, a country that has reacted in the past to terrorism in world wars, in Korea, in the gulf conflict and through our peacekeeping efforts around the world. We have reacted and we still continue to react to that type of behaviour.

We have been asked certainly because of who we are and what we represent, because we will add legitimacy to an international effort. That is the case and we should be proud of that. We should be proud of the efforts previous Canadians have made to world peace. Other countries will certainly say that if Canada is involved, there must be some legitimacy to those who say that Saddam Hussein must go.

I have listened to this debate tonight and like the hon. member from Ottawa, I spoke to many constituents over the past week to get their ideas on this issue. What I heard in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant is very similar to what is heard here in Ottawa. There are mixed messages. In fact if we look at the media, we can understand why Canadians are concerned and confused as to what the issues really are in this because I do not think they have been debated properly. Canadians have not been told the whole story as to some of the atrocities Saddam Hussein has done.

It is argued by some that the actions we may take over the next few weeks or months will not do anything to hurt Saddam Hussein. It has been said that all they will do is hurt the Iraqi people. But what is worse? The atrocities Saddam Hussein does against his own people?

That was a debate many of my constituents had. Would it be worse to deal militarily with some of the collateral damage, men and women who will be hurt by this, men and women who Saddam Hussein puts in front of his military establishments as shields against attack, or would it be better to let him go on as he did in the 1980s with the Kurdish people? It is a tough question to answer.

Last year the United Nations Commission on Human Rights condemned the massive violations of human rights in Iraq. It noted that it was the worst country in the world for disappearances. Over 16,000 people have disappeared in Iraq.

Iraq does not have the same laws as Canada and it does not have the same traditions as Canada. Iraqi people do not have the right of association. They do not have the right to stand up and say what they feel about their leadership. They do not have an opposition like the one across the floor. They are not allowed to do that and if they did, they would either go missing or they would be killed.

It is estimated that in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein made his campaigns against the Kurds, some 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds died. Women and children. Whole villages, small rural villages disappeared. Is this the type of person we want leading a country in the world, in this global village? I think not.

Why are we at this point? Why are we at the point of military build-up in the gulf? It is because the United Nations special commission which was set up after the gulf war to review Saddam Hussein, to look for weapons of mass destruction and to oversee their dismantlement, has been lied to and has been cheated and has not been able to do its job. We are at a standoff. Do we do what most of us would want to do and negotiate a settlement? But if we do, how do we trust him?

We negotiated a settlement on the gulf war. The United Nations brokered a settlement. It was given assurances and commitments by Saddam Hussein that he would tell it about his weapons. He said he never got involved in biological warfare or chemical warfare. We found out differently. How do we trust a negotiated settlement with this man?

The UN special commission succeeded in destroying 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 litres of live chemical weapon agents, 48 operational missiles, 6 missile launchers and 30 special missile warheads which could have been used for biological weapons. That is scary.

The threat that this man has on the world scares me. I am sure it scares a number of Canadians. That is why we need to take action. We need to send a message to the world that it is unacceptable behaviour. And who better to do it and who better to get involved than Canada.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Calgary Southeast.

This is a very difficult debate. Any time we engage in a decision that is going to cost people's lives, it is something none of us in this House take lightly.

Clearly the situation we have today is very unlike what occurred in 1991 in gulf war one, if we want to call it that. The parameters are not as clear and the situation is more nebulous. The threat, while there, is not as clear. Nonetheless we have some decisions to make. Should we stay or should we go? Should we bomb or should we not? Should we ask the United Nations to take a different course, or should we support our allies, the United States?

The United States would not have asked us for support publicly if it did not believe it was going to receive it. Clearly the U.S. believes it is going to receive some support in some way and that in all likelihood would be modest and token support to show moral support for the U.S.

However we have some decisions to make so let us deal with the issues as they come up. It is certain that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons. Of that there is no doubt. The issue is how to get rid of them.

The objective of this whole exercise must be to allow UN inspectors to get into Iraq unfettered. The question is how to do that.

The United States wants to bomb if diplomacy fails. Let us look at some considerations.

If a VX or sarin gas plant were bombed, sarin and VX nerve gas would be released into the air and would spread around causing thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people to die. The situation could be catastrophic. The worst case scenario would be very bad. It would also polarize individuals within the country and would probably drive support to Saddam Hussein. Support within his own country would harden, just like it did after 1991.

Also, it would end the visits of UNSCOM in Iraq. We can be certain of that. UNSCOM has done an outstanding job of establishing the presence of nuclear weapons grade material and also the presence of chemical and biological weapons. This has enabled us to get rid of them. Those inspections would end in the event of bombing.

We have to consider that the action of bombing must outweigh the downside: polarizing support within Iraq; polarizing the people against the international community; potentially causing a huge catastrophe in the release of sarin and VX nerve gases and biological and chemical weapons; and also a hardening of positions in the United Nations and the end of weapons inspections in Iraq.

If we bomb, the bombing must take place on military targets alone. We must avoid any kind of collateral damage of the civilian population.

If diplomacy is to occur, there is something important we are missing here. Diplomacy should involve the Arab nations. In fact the secretary general of the Arab league has said very clearly he would support diplomatic initiatives and in fact that is the preferable way. The Arab league is against the bombing scenario. Let us make it put its money where its mouth is and ask the Arab league to put together a group of diplomats intent on going into Baghdad to try to organize a diplomatic solution.

Some give and take could occur. One of the complaints Saddam Hussein had was that the weapons inspectors were all people from the U.S. and U.K. One compromise that could easily be made would be to involve other weapons inspectors along with the U.S. and U.K. individuals, such as members from Arab nations. This would add an element of impartiality and would eliminate that argument.

We should also not end any sanctions and support a trade of oil for food so that the Iraqi people will have some kind of relief for the terrible situation they have endured for so long. Oil for food and medicine would also demonstrate clearly to the Iraqi people that the international community is very much sympathetic to them but is against the brutal regime that brutalizes them more than anything else. I need not remind the House that the greatest number of casualties suffered under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein is among the Iraqi people.

The U.S. has asked us for support which will likely be peripheral support. We can provide that support if diplomatic initiatives have truly been exhausted.

There are some inconsistencies in our foreign policy. We are all desirous of supporting UN resolution 687. At the same time we ignore the UN resolutions in the Middle East. We ignore the illegal grouping of Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon who should have been removed a long time ago. We also ignore UN resolutions relating to the areas shared by the Palestinian and Israeli people. We ignore UN resolutions on the West Bank, the Gaza strip and Jerusalem.

If we are to be consistent and fair not only to ourselves but to the world, and in particular to the Arab community, we must support all UN resolutions fairly. We cannot say on one hand that we are supporting resolution 687 while on the other hand choosing to ignore another UN resolution dealing with the Middle East. If we want to be seen as a fair player we have to support all UN resolutions equally and fairly. In doing so we will be seen as being a far more equitable and fair player in the Middle East.

One of the problems with the Middle East is that although most of the nations there despise or at least fear Saddam Hussein, they mistrust, and rightfully so, the west because of the failure of western foreign policy to come to the aid of some egregious situations that are taking place right now in the Middle East.

Ultimately the final solution in dealing with Saddam Hussein has to come from within. The political solution is the solution that will end the regime of Saddam Hussein. It has to come from the remnants of opposition parties that still exist within Iraq.

The bombing, if it is to occur, must be understood by the Iraqi people to be in support of them and against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is also important for the Arab community to get on side with whatever we do. We must ensure that diplomatic initiatives are exhausted and that the Arab community is intimately involved in those decisions. If it is not, any decisions that are made will be looked upon again as western influence in Middle East problems and the lack of sensitivity implicit in that.

It is also important for us to understand our role as Canadians. We have two roles. We must support our neighbours, the United States. We receive much from them and are grateful as co-operative partners in military affairs. However, as has been said many times before, a military solution must come after a diplomatic solution.

We can take a leadership role in trying to put forth through the United Nations a very clear and specific request to the Arab league to involve them as mediators in the quandary we are faced with right now to ensure that weapons inspectors can go into Iraq. This might be accomplished by explaining to them very clearly that the effects of a chemical, nuclear or biological attack by Iraq on Israel would involve casualties on Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian people and the Jordanians.

I realize that our time is coming to an end, but I implore our country, the foreign minister and the prime minister to push the Americans to aggressively achieve a diplomatic solution for us to take our leadership role to the UN and to the Arab league, to pursue a diplomatic issue and to try some different innovative ways to involve the Arab community in achieving a diplomatic solution before a military solution becomes our only option.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in this take note debate particularly because I actually have a private member's motion before the House dealing with Iraq. Motion No. 279 proposes:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should endorse the formation of an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of prosecuting Saddam Hussein and all other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, including the unlawful use of force, crimes committed in contravention of the Geneva Convention and the crime of genocide.

I would like first to address the rationale behind my motion. Many people observing the debate tonight will have heard many members discussing geopolitical considerations, the question of war and peace, the question of the United States foreign policy and its relationship to the United Nations. However I am afraid that perhaps not enough people realize the extent to which we are dealing with an utterly morally bankrupt and tyrannical regime which is arguably the most vicious and tyrannical regime on the face of the world today.

World leaders in the past have drawn parallels between Saddam Hussein and other great figures of political and moral evil of the century like Adolf Hitler. I submit that such comparisons are not entirely outlandish.

I mention these things because it is important to understand with whom it is we are dealing. Saddam Hussein's regime, as was mentioned, has been responsible for the unlawful deaths, execution and torture of countless hundreds of thousands of his own civilians and hundreds of thousands of citizens of other nations such as Iran and Kuwait and the disputed territories of Kurdistan.

The United Nations has repeatedly reprimanded the Government of Iraq for its atrocious human rights record, a record which among other things has former detainees testifying as to torture techniques that include “branding, electric shocks administered to the genitals and other areas, beating, burning with hot irons, suspension from rotating ceiling fans, dripping acid on the skin, rape, breaking of limbs, denial of food and water, and threats to rape or otherwise harm relatives. The security forces in Iraq have killed many of their torture victims and mutilated their bodies before returning them to their families.” Also as a gesture they require the victims' families to pay for the cost of their execution. That is the kind of regime we are dealing with. It is a regime which simply cannot be reasoned with.

I have heard many members of this place say that we must fully exhaust all avenues of diplomacy. No rational person could possibly disagree with that proposition. The problem is that for seven years now the civilized world has attempted to implement and enforce United Nation Security Council Resolution 687 which requires the destruction of all weapons of mass destruction and facilities for the production of such weapons in Iraq.

For seven years the regime of Saddam Hussein has belligerently and deliberately lied, ducked, dodged, obfuscated and refused to co-operate with the order of international civilization in the unanimously passed resolution of the security council.

The United Nations, the United States, the European powers, the Arab neighbours of Iraq, and Canada as a middle power have all played a long and exhaustive role in attempting to find a diplomatic and peaceful resolution to what could be a devastating and violent conflict.

The diplomatic solution has not worked. That is why we are now at this juncture today. I emphasize this because many of those who have expressed enormous reticence at even Canada's symbolic involvement in military action, principally on the part of the United States, continue to emphasize the need for a diplomatic solution with their heads in the sand. They seem not to recognize that those diplomatic solutions have been tried and tried, have been exhausted and have proven not to work.

I could quote the head of the UNSCOM team of weapons investigators that has been operating in Iraq. He recently reported to the United Nations Security Council on discussions he had with Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariz Aziz.

He says that these talks were characterized from the beginning “by extended statements by the Iraqi side to which no even remotely equal reply was invited, accepted or apparently wanted. Moments of abuse and denigration of the UNSCOM and its professional officers, an attempt literally to apportion all blame to UNSCOM past and present for the disarmament task had not been completed and sanctions on Iraq had remained in force, and the deputy prime minister spoke at length about how Iraq had divested itself long ago of all its weapons of mass destruction, their components and their means to produce them,” and on and on and on and.

This is the kind of diplomacy the United Nations faces when dealing with Iraq. Diplomacy cannot be exercised with a stone wall. Diplomacy cannot be exercised with a tyrant who refuses to negotiate. Diplomacy cannot be exercised with a tyrant who places no value on the lives of his own people.

There is one thing and one thing alone that Saddam Hussein understands: the force he has used so ruthlessly on his own people.

Let us get one thing perfectly clear. This is not some theoretical threat we are talking about. This is not some exercise in American sabre rattling that some of our more colourful members would suggest.

We are talking about a tyrannical lunatic who has control over weapons that could potentially kill millions of innocent civilians in terrorist attacks. Other members have discussed the verified evidence of chemical and biological weapons still in the possession of Iraq.

According to UNSCOM'S February 4 report there are “38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 litres of live CWHs, 6 scud mobile missile launchers, 19 missiles, 30 special chemical missile warheads, hundreds of other chemical and conventional warheads, hundreds of chemical weapon production items, 690 tonnes of chemical weapon agents, 3,000 tonnes of chemical weapon precursors and ingredients and a 1,000 kilometre range super gun.”

They have all confirmed the existence of industrial scale VX nerve gas production facilities and production of four tonnes of VX, one drop of which can kill. They have discovered 19,000 litres of botulinum, 8,400 litres of anthrax and 2,000 litres of aflatoxin. I do not even know what all these things are but I am reliably informed that each one of them is enormously deadly.

I want to close with this sentiment. If we do not join our allies in forceful action to intervene in this tyrant's refusal to obey the international order, are we prepared as peace loving Canadians to wake up some day in the not too distant future to hear broadcasts on our television news that Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Tehran or Kuwait City have been decimated with deadly biological weapons launched from Iraq? Are we prepared for that fate?

I submit we are not, and that is why I submit that the most peaceful thing we can do is to support our allies in intervening aggressively once it is determined that all diplomatic means to this problem have been exhausted.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make some remarks tonight on the issue which will hopefully reflect the views of Canadians on just what we should be doing now in connection with the Iraq enforcement action.

The backdrop is the Iraq war following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the ceasefire which followed and required the destruction of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. UN inspectors have taken possession of and destroyed a number of such weapons, including 480,000 litres of chemical material that has been referred to along with other weapons in the debate tonight.

I am splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.

The job following the Iraq war is not complete. Iraq has bucked, obstructed and prevented completion of that task. We now live in a world where we cannot tolerate the existence of such weapons in the hands of those who would threaten the world order. Perhaps I do not need to point out that Iraq has not just developed such weapons but it has used them domestically and threatened to use them internationally.

In the face of these Iraqi threats and the complete absence of trust or confidence in its leadership, the world community is determined to eradicate these weapons. The question is how and what should Canada's role be. We are not in a position to do nothing. We are not only a UN member, we are also members of NATO and of the Commonwealth. We are already part of these alliances. When our UN, our NATO and our Commonwealth partners reach a consensus on an essential common goal, we must stand with them. It is now a given that international enforcement and peacekeeping are a part of our new world order. They are essential to global stability.

Here is my short list of what Canada should be doing which I present on behalf of my constituents. Our government must be in a position to accept or verify the latest intelligence data gathered by the United Nations and the alliance partners. Canada and its alliance partners have invested large amounts in assets that gather intelligence. While most of this data will not be released so as to protect procedures and sources, they will be available to our government members who must make the decisions, and they must assure Canadians that they have done this.

We must reassure ourselves that all United Nations and diplomatic initiatives have come to an end. There may well be some additional poker playing by the Iraqi leadership in the few weeks or days to come. I would personally rather win in a poker game than in a military engagement. Only then should we make a determination to support the alliance in a military engagement. This would be consistent with our Canadian history, over 100 years of Canadian history of participating in alliances of this nature.

As a partner in any such alliance, we must ensure the alliance will operate to secure the United Nations objectives and will not act contrary to the UN rules. We should provide such support to the alliance as is consistent with our ability and what its needs are.

We should continue to assert Canadian ways within the alliance. Only if we are present will we have the ability to assert these Canadian ways. Remember that Canada has developed over a long period of time its own ways of acting internationally. Sometimes we are rather good at it. We must not miss opportunities to influence the way in which the alliance carries out its task in this instance.

This enforcement action must be limited and must be contained almost at all costs. I realize that once one enters into a military engagement one runs the risk of losing control of it. I cannot accept that we would enter into this where there was any material risk of an expansion of the engagement beyond what the partners had agreed to.

I have three more points to make. First, this enforcement action should not be seen as a one-off exercise. There is a message here for all countries that would flaunt the evolving modern rules of international order. All this is important to our collective global future.

Second, the targets of any enforcement action must be military. In an action like this we anticipate that there may be some military engagement on the ground and special operations to secure the goals of the action. However, it is my view that Canadians will not accept but will in fact reject any alliance operation which puts civilians at risk.

Third, it will be very difficult to replace the leadership in Iraq without leaving a power vacuum. In my view, a power vacuum in that region is almost as dangerous to the world order as the current circumstance.

Where would we be if we all did nothing? Would we simply wait meekly for the sucker punch that would inevitably come, with the attendant violence and instability? I do not think we want to wait meekly. I think we want to act internationally.

I do not believe that we can do nothing. We must act responsibly as Canadians in the way we have done in the past. We are now called to act to protect the international order with our partners. On the terms which I have outlined tonight, I believe that Canadians will be prepared to do that. I do not believe they have much choice.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this take note debate. Clearly over the last seven hours, members of Parliament have made it very clear this is a very important issue for Canada. It is not to be taken lightly. We are talking about a threat to world peace.

Members have been very clear. I have written many notes, which I have changed often over the last number of hours. I want to abandon a few of the points I was going to make, only because I believe they have already been well made by members, including the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

The president of the United States has asked Canada to provide non-combat support. It is important to understand that the request is for non-combat support.

The Prime Minister undertook to consult with the House prior to making his decision with his cabinet. I want to start by thanking the Prime Minister for providing the opportunity to all members of Parliament to voice the views of their constituents and their own views on behalf of their constituents.

Today I received a fax from a constituent, Ms. Janis Alton, who has written me often on matters of international peace and security and human rights issues. Ms. Alton has touched on a few points which I think Canadians would like expressed in the House.

There are just as many questions that have to be answered. The importance of the debate is not necessarily for us to answer those questions but rather to ensure those questions are posed and fully explored as part of the decision making process.

Ms. Alton is utterly opposed to any military action. She stated in her fax: “While Iraq's leadership continues to resist full compliance with a security council order for inspection and destruction of its weapon sites, at the same time, its civil society has no voice in the matter”.

She goes on to talk about human rights issues and the plight of the civilians. That is certainly an important aspect. Canadians want that assurance. That is part of the consideration. I believe that all members of Parliament hope that every possible protection and consideration will be given to innocent victims to ensure that the kinds of things that people can only imagine do not occur.

Ms. Alton concludes that military action should only take place with the sanction of the security council. It has been pointed out a number of times today that only two of the five security council members have given their support at this point.

The question is whether the reasons for the non-support at this point of the other members, France, Germany and Russia, are substantive which should be exhausted prior to taking any further actions. Ms. Alton has suggested seeking the resolution of the lack of unanimity of the security council is an important question for us to raise.

A number of constituents have raised with me the issue of the United States. It is the indictment that this is a unilateral action of the United States and Canada cannot be pushed around and manipulated.

This kind of attitude probably has no place in terms of the decision making process. We are talking about the fundamental issues of peace and security of the world, very serious issue, and to suggest that somehow this is a unilateral action is somewhat shortsighted.

There is no question that Saddam Hussein has not complied with resolution 687 of April 1991 nor with any subsequent resolutions. We cannot forget, however, that historically in matters of peace and security Canada has not been a bystander. Thousands and thousands of Canadians lost their lives for peace in the world. Canada has been a player, has been supportive.

The security council itself, however, has made it known very clearly that in its view Saddam Hussein represents a threat to the neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran. When we mention these countries altogether, I think we cannot help but recall how many conflicts have gone on there for how many years and how volatile the situation is. This is a very serious situation.

There is the question of guarantees. Clearly there can be no guarantee that any military strike is going to achieve the desired results. But the question then becomes if every diplomatic option has been exhausted fully to the satisfaction of all and no further action is taken, then what?

It is a very good question. What happens? I believe it is the view of the UN that failure to comply with the UN resolution is not a passive position. It is in fact taken to be a threat, a real threat to world peace.

In the ceasefire agreement, Saddam Hussein in writing accepted that he would, under international supervision, destroy, remove or render harmless the weapons of mass destruction and that economic sanctions would be in place until compliance.

This compliance, as many members have outlined, is under the auspices of UNSCOM, the UN special commission which was established by UN security council resolution 687. Many members have outlined its responsibilities. It has not been allowed to do its job. This is important from the standpoint that this agency represents the interests of all the members of the UN.

It represents the monitoring agency and the agency which is going to deal with things. One of the previous speakers went through a very substantial list of the destruction of chemical weapons, missiles and missile launchers and other warheads that UNSCOM has succeeded in destroying to date. Yet there are still many more there. This is a serious threat.

Before I came to the House today I looked on the web. I wanted to see what CNN was reporting. One of the stories says that defence officials said on Monday that the U.S. is sending as many as 3,000 ground troops to Kuwait as tensions heightened over the weapons inspection impasse. Secretary of state Madeleine Albright said the United States has the authority, responsibility, means and will to launch substantial military action against Iraq if there was no diplomatic solution. These are very powerful words and no one can question the commitment or the resolve in regard to dealing with Saddam Hussein.

In closing, I want to make my input to the Prime Minister as follows, and I think it is supported by the House, that all diplomatic options be exhausted fully. We need those assurances. Second, that every effort be made to secure the support of the UN security council. This is a very important element. Third, we have to have the kind of assurances that there would be the greatest possible protection for civilians. Finally, that we take every precaution to ensure the protection of our troops if they participate.

It is a very serious issue and I believe that the House has spoken very clearly that we have no choice if there is no diplomatic solution.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first term in Parliament. I did not anticipate debating the possibility of Canada participating in a war.

Through the campaign I was asked many questions, but no one asked this question, no one asked about war. What prepares one for a debate such as this and the possible outcome of it? I believe it should be our humanity and our desire for peace that guides us.

Canada should be on the side of those who seek to resolve this crisis through negotiations and diplomacy. There is nothing to be gained in the long run through a strategy of provocation and threats. I join a Yukon resident, Rod Snow, who I just spoke to, who is opposed to the prospect of force. It is an admission of failure, the absolute failure of the world's leaders. It is not an admission I would like to make.

We must approach this extremely critically based on knowledge and based on what we know. It is hard to make decisions on what we do not know. As a parliamentarian I have not been briefed by our government. We have not had any UN representative to brief us. I do not know all the weapons information that there is. Are they there in Iraq? The UN inspectors have not been able to go in and confirm what is there.

What do we know about our Canadian army? Are they prepared? We just heard, as they have just come through the ice storm and assisting people through floods, that their budget is gone, they are understaffed, they face cutbacks, they are underfunded. We can barely give them helmets, a decent wage or even basic housing. There is very little we give them and in return what we are asking our soldiers to give us is possibly their lives.

We do not know what the financial cost of this endeavour will be to Canadians. Is it open-ended? Will we be able to get out? More importantly, can we afford the human cost?

What do we know about Iraq? We know Saddam Hussein is a dictator. We know that he is a gross human rights abuser and that he kills his own citizens. That is no reason for us to believe that it would be better for us kill his citizens than for him to do it himself. That is no reason for us to go in and join a military strike of bombing.

We know that the widows and children of the gulf war are starving and dying daily. There is little if any medicine. The cities are crumbling and the young and the elderly are living under sanctions imposed in part by us. They may have biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, but so do other countries.

I would like to know who is arming this dictator. Who is selling the arms? Once again, the UN inspectors have not been able to finish their work.

Our ultimate objective, of course, is peace. What we need to do to reach this is to make sure that the UN inspectors can get into Iraq. If we join this strike as planned by the U.S., not by the UN, if we strike first there is no peace.

What would cause the greatest harm is bombing. We know that the bombs are not precise. We know who will be beneath those bombs: families, mothers, fathers, children, people who have already suffered, who are already starving and dying and who are already living under a brutal dictator.

I have heard over the last few days that what we have here are principles. Our principles are at stake. I believe, more importantly, that lives are at stake. Before we jeopardize human lives by the use of deadly weapons and approve death sentences for many civilians and before we expose our Canadian soldiers to war who may be ill prepared for it, we must make every effort to get UN inspectors into Iraq.

There will be no winners in this war. However, there is time and there are options. We do not have to go to war. We do not have to be pushed into this, especially in such a short time period, January 29 to this date. The pressure is building that we have to join, but we do not have to join.

What we need to do is make sure there is an international team of UN inspectors that excludes the U.S., Britain and possibly even Canada, but inspectors who would be allowed into Iraq to do their work. We could ease the inhumane sanctions that are causing more suffering for civilians and use that as leverage for the UN inspectors to enter Iraq.

I have heard that Canada has an obligation to join its allies and go to war. However, we are not obligated to start a war or to be a part of a war where we know the majority of suffering will fall on civilians. The language has changed so much that the death of civilians is called collateral damage. It is not seen for what it is, torture and death.

What we face is the possibility of damage by Saddam Hussein and the possibility of a threat. Once again, other countries have weapons of mass destruction. This damage and threat can be warded off with diplomacy. As leaders of the country and as members of Parliament, it is incumbent on us to make sure that we use that diplomacy.

We face the certainty of harm in comparison to the possibility of the threat from the country of Iraq. We face the certainty of harm and destruction if we join the U.S. in bombing Iraqi citizens because those are the people who will suffer. Saddam Hussein has shown himself to be very capable of surviving anything. However, it is those who are most vulnerable who will not survive and will suffer further and further.

We also face the unknown that will follow if we do start bombing. There will be a conflagration in that area. It might ignite. It may spread. It may drag on for years.

Most of all, we must seek a humane solution. A humane solution is one where we do the least harm and the most good.

In ending, I would like to thank the Speaker, the pages and the clerk for seeing this debate through to the end and also all my parliamentary colleagues who stayed well into the night. Hopefully this is a debate that we will never have to have again and that it will only happen once in our lifetime.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, pursuant to order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. later today, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1.40 a.m.)