Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to know what to say in a debate on the advisability of taking part in an armed conflict. We would all wish it had not come to this.
A peaceful resolution through diplomatic means must always be everyone's objective. Quebeckers and Canadians can be proud of their historic contribution in this regard. Canada's tradition has always been to try to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts. The Canadian approach has always favoured diplomatic solutions to crises.
As proof, I would point to the interventions of Lester B. Pearson in the Suez crisis, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Price, and the numerous peacekeeping missions of the Canadian Armed Forces since 1990 in Bosnia and Haiti, as well as the Canadian presence in Egypt and Cyprus in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, the solution does not strike me as so obvious or straightforward in the case of Iraq. There could be a war on the horizon. Yesterday, the President of the United States called the Prime Minister to ask for Canada's support in its military operation against Iraq. A White House spokesman even said there was agreement that Canada and the United States should act together if force became necessary.
Here in Ottawa, a National Defence spokesman indicated that the Canadian army was getting ready for possible involvement with a view to providing logistical support to American forces.
It will be recalled that, after the Gulf War in 1991, the United Nations Security Council ordered Iraq to destroy all its chemical, bacterial and, if it had any, nuclear weapons. The international community obviously wants Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions imposed on that country, particularly resolution 687 regarding the elimination of all its weapons of mass destruction.
In our view, Iraq, with Saddam Hussein as its leader, still constitutes a potential threat to world peace, particularly if he is left with the capacity to manufacture or develop chemical or bacteriological weapons. Iraq's refusal to allow UN inspectors to do their job therefore threatens international security.
The international community, needless to say, is at the end of its tether with Iraq's lack of co-operation. The Americans and the British could therefore prepare to take military action against Iraq.
The issue for Quebec and Canadian parliamentarians in this House is not whether to support the UN resolutions or to condemn Iraq. It is, rather, how to apply the UN resolutions and put an end to the danger threatening the entire Middle East, if not the planet as a whole.
The Bloc continues to favour a diplomatic solution. We believe that not all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. These diplomatic efforts are favoured by France, Belgium, Italy and Russia at the moment.
All of the players in the international community are hoping for a diplomatic solution to this crisis. Canada must intervene not only with the United Nations, but also with NATO and with the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
The government of Saddam Hussein must, however, give UN inspectors responsible for Iraqi disarmament unrestricted access to the 60-odd sites considered sensitive, which Baghdad is currently denying them.
Should the diplomatic efforts currently underway with Baghdad fail, we in the Bloc feel Canada must insist that the military strike against Iraq be approved by the UN security council.
Since the UN is carrying out its inspection and monitoring missions in Iraq under Security Council resolutions, if a diplomatic solution is unattainable, it would be desirable for that same body to be the one to authorize military action.
Before there is any military intervention in Iraq, we in the Bloc Quebecois believe a UN Security Council debate ought to be held. Generally, the UN Security Council's procedure for addressing problems of peace and security is a two-phase process.
First, if there is a threat to international peace, the UN Security Council can pass economic sanctions which all members are bound to apply. That is why there is an embargo against Iraq, and the lifting of those sanctions is linked to the unconditional destruction of all those chemical weapons.
Second, if the sanctions are not enough, then the Council can decide on military action, as it has done on two occasions, the Korean War in 1950 and the Gulf War in 1991.
All of the actions against Iraq, then, were taken in keeping with Security Council resolutions. We in the Bloc are of the opinion that we ought to do the same thing this time, because it is important that the greatest number of countries speak out in support of any intervention, any military intervention in particular. Such support carries indisputable moral weight. It is also the only way to get the Middle Eastern countries involved, the Arab countries in particular.
Let us think of the importance of Russian support. Russian President Boris Yeltsin delivered two stern warnings this past week to the effect that an American attack could set off a world war. Again this morning, President Yeltsin repeated his support for a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi crisis.
An American military offensive outside the UN framework could also result in strong Arab sympathy for Iraq. This is certainly not what we want to see happen. It is therefore important to ensure that the diplomatic process takes its course and that the Security Council debates the issue and is kept informed of any proposal for military intervention, which we do not reject out of hand.
Yesterday, US President Bill Clinton asked the Prime Minister for Canadian participation in a military operation against Iraq, such participation to be restricted to transportation and search and rescue teams. As far as we know, the United States has apparently not called for soldiers or fighter aircraft.>
Canadian military participation of an offensive nature seems out of the question for the time being. It is nonetheless participation in an armed intervention.
Throughout discussions about the crisis, Canada did not really show the leadership that was expected. Instead it took a wait-and-see approach. The Liberals are not keeping up the historic role that Canada played internationally, as I mentioned, in the time of Lester B. Pearson, and still plays, and that it played more recently through the initiative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs with respect to the land mines treaty.
Canada could have consulted its European allies in the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe and in NATO with a view to exploring various diplomatic solutions. Instead, the Canadian government decided to wait to hear from the Americans.
It seems to me that the Liberals must keep up the tradition that was established and maintained by Pearson and that inspired the more recent stand taken by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Today, the Prime Minister told us that he wanted to consult us before announcing Canada's position in this matter.
This was the approach and the sort of debate we had in recent years on the issue of Haiti, of Bosnia, and of allowing cruise missiles over Canadian territory. These initiatives, I think, give all parliamentarians the opportunity to take part in the debate and to contribute to a solution with suggestions to the government to enable it to take the most enlightened stand.
The Prime Minister should in this case consult us, but more importantly, we should vote once the government has taken a position. On this subject, I recall the events of November 1990 and January 1991, again in connection with Iraq, when twice in this House—and I remember that the Liberal Party insisted on having a vote at the time so all parliamentarians could have a say and the government could have the results of a vote by all parliamentarians in this House before any armed intervention took place.
I think the arguments that were valid in November 1990 and January 1991 remain valid today, have the same moral value, one that will make Canada's position clear to its allies.
The House should therefore, in our opinion, be once again consulted and hold a formal vote on the position before the start of any war, if this were unfortunately the only solution—and I think everyone agrees.
Today's consultation is, in the opinion of the Bloc, merely the first step in a process that will clearly establish a position on Canada's involvement in action against the regime of Saddam Hussein.
In conclusion, we must take the diplomatic approach, consult our allies, propose courses of action, involve the United Nations Security Council and, should military intervention be necessary, it would be eminently desirable to have it carried out under the aegis of the United Nations.