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.