Debates of Feb. 9th, 1998

Middle East

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, this time allotment will be divided between the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and myself.

So far in this debate the assumption is being made that Saddam Hussein will use biological weapons and therefore he must be destroyed. Before deciding on the proper course of action and without making such an assumption, we must examine the facts and the gravity of the situation.

First it must be remembered that Saddam Hussein is the one who declared war on Iran, a war that persisted for 10 years. It was Saddam Hussein who instigated the gulf crisis in 1989 and 1990. We are dealing here with an aggressive, dangerous and unpredictable man. There is no doubt.

It must also be stressed that there is no resolution by the United Nations Security Council requesting the United States or any other government to start a war in 1998. By no means has the security council, let alone the United Nations membership, the general assembly, given the mandate to any country to proceed with war.

Another assumption is that only Iraq among the community of nations possesses biological weapons. Who makes these weapons? Where do they come from? Have the United States, the United Kingdom, France, India or China ever declared that they do not possess such weaponry? I do not recall such a statement.

It seems to me there are two possible approaches for consideration by the community of nations. The first is to stoop to the level of the opponent and to fight fire with fire, but in this case such an approach hardly seems appropriate where no opening shot has yet been fired. The other approach is to pursue diplomatic solutions with the long term goal in mind of making it possible for the people of Iraq to replace the present leadership.

History teaches us that whenever we declare war, Mr. Hussein becomes stronger because his population rallies around him. In addition, whenever we declare war, the Islamic world perceives a threat by the western world. Whenever we declare war, we help Saddam Hussein. Whenever we declare war, we solidify domestic support around him and polarize global public opinion. It seems that instead of waging war again, we should find ways to drive a wedge between the population and the military leadership.

Why not abandon the fruitless imposition of sanctions? Sanctions have not worked. They have served only to reinforce grassroots support in Iraq for Saddam Hussein and to create hardships for the civilian population.

Why penalize the civilian population? Why not allow Iraq to sell its oil on the market? With affluence, civilian standards of living would improve. With improved standards of living, the people of Iraq would eventually recover to the point where they could replace the current military regime. It has happened elsewhere. That is certainly a better prospect than bombing, destroying and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

It is interesting to note and worth putting on record the observations by Anton Kuerti, the world renowned Canadian concert pianist. He expressed his views on the situation in Iraq in a letter to the Globe and Mail published last Saturday:

There is a grim irony in watching the nation with the largest collection of doomsday weapons in the world seeking to forbid another nation from acquiring its own relatively negligible collection.

Granted, 20,000 weapons in sane hands may in the short run, be less dangerous than even one in the hands of a madman, but that does not make them safe or morally tolerable. We have not forgotten who used them first. Only those nations that had forsworn the possession of genocidal weapons have the right to insist that others do likewise.

It is even more ironic that the nation which refuses to pay most of its dues to the United Nations and sabotaged the worldwide attempt to outlaw land mines should invoke an outdated United Nations resolution to justify its imminent massive bombing raids, despite the fact that almost every nation on the Security Council is opposed to this new aggression—.Just as neglect of due process of law brings the whole judicial system into disrespect, the scenario that is unfolding not only threatens to further destroy Iraq and any hope for Middle East peace, but to obliterate what little moral authority and respect the UN can still muster. If the UN becomes a tool for one country to manipulate and justify its unlawful actions, its useful life will be over.

The situation is very serious but it should not be resolved by way of armed conflict. We should work harder along diplomatic fronts with the French, Italian and Russian governments which are presently engaged in diplomatic negotiations with Iraq. The solution is not to be found through war. There are good reasons for the west to rethink its approach to Iraq and the gravity of the situation makes it necessary and urgent.

Tonight two Reform speakers in their interventions said that the only moral justification for taking life is to prevent loss of future life. I submit this logic is appalling because it endorses the killing of innocent civilians by the thousands on the assumption that lethal weapons might be used in the future.

With that logic, war could be declared on each nation holding weapons of mass destruction so as to prevent loss of future life. What a prospect. The morality of the Reform Party would lead to bringing back capital punishment. The state would take a life in retaliation for a similar act. What a barbaric example for a modern state to give to society.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, the prime minister undertook to this House that before Canada would consider any request for going beyond diplomatic action in the present crisis in Iraq, he would consult the House. He has done this and I think it is worth noting that it is a progressive step in the evolution of parliamentary responsibility.

The United States Constitution envisages the president and congress acting together, but increasingly they resort to armed force done by executive presidential action alone. We are the only country, I think, among the present group of countries interested in this issue where Parliament has been consulted. I think it is a precedent for future action and a welcome one.

There has been some discussion of 1991. It is worth commenting that although there was a big debate in Parliament, it did occur three months after the decision was taken to send the troops in. When the call comes at five in the morning “Please join us in military action”, we simply say “Look, we have to consult Parliament”. That is our approach. It is a new approach and we thank the prime minister for it.

There has been some discussion on the legal authority of the United States and by the same token those associated or allied with the United States to take action involving the potential use of force against Iraq. It has been said “You must go to the security council and get a fresh resolution”.

I do not think that is so as a matter of legal interpretation. In fact the gulf operation was rather special. It was undertaken by a government on Canada's part previous to the present one, and the United States by a president previous to the present president. What was done was a little different from classic UN peacekeeping operations or peacemaking operations where in fact there is a UN force under the aegis of the UN secretary general and responsible to the secretary general.

In fact what was done was a series of umbrella resolutions delegating the power to the United States commander in chief and responsible to the president of the United States. I say that was an unusual action but the series of resolutions have a broad, legal authority for which I think it can reasonably be argued that the authority to take the present action is there.

My own advice would be if the opportunity allows to seek a fresh security council resolution, but I do not think it is legally necessary and we would have to bear in mind that the veto power operates. It is intolerable that the veto should be used to prevent collective action on which there is a consensus. This was the argument we made and other countries made as far back as the Korean war in 1950 when the general assembly passed the uniting for peace resolution, an unprecedented constitutional step. I think the legal authority is there.

Canada's own role as we know has been the classic UN peacekeeping role which then foreign minister Lester Pearson devised. It is associated with his name. We do believe in the peacekeeping role. We have tended to eschew the use of armed force. Our role in the gulf war was limited to a supporting auxiliary role with an interdiction of search and destroy operations.

It is worth noting that the president of the United States in approaching us has asked us to do that and no more. It is search and rescue operations, transport operations, but not more. I think there is advantage for that, and it is not something that we have sought, but it means that problems involving the use of armed force, involving the law of war, simply do not apply in relation to the Canadian operations.

The United States in relying on the resolutions of course does not operate in a vacuum. The present United Nations based law is subject to the general law of war, the customary rules of international law. One of the rules is of course that you must exhaust the diplomatic methods, the peaceful methods, the lesser controls. The United States is aware of that. We are aware of that.

The prime minister and the foreign minister have assured us that diplomatic activities will continue. That is the primary obligation. It is only after they have been tried and exhausted to the full that one is allowed to resort to other options which may involve the use of armed force. The principle of the economy in the use of power applies if armed force is used. All parties to the gulf war operation were aware of that and parties to any future action in the present situation would be aware of that.

In particular, granted the evolution of international law, the developing juridical conscience, times have moved since 1991. It is true that the 1978 Geneva protocols additional to the Geneva protocols of 1925, which established stringent rules in the application of air power where civilian targets are involved incidentally to a military objective, apply even though it is true that neither Iraq nor the United States ratified them. International law supplied the general rules.

I say this simply to stress that if one feels one has to move beyond the diplomatic stage, one does not operate in a legal vacuum. We are aware of this. Our allies are aware of this. We will be continuing with our diplomatic negotiations to make that clear if further options arise.

To recapitulate, it is not in my view necessary to obtain a fresh security council resolution. I believe there is enough available under the series of umbrella resolutions passed in 1991 and their continuing interpretation and application but it would be better to obtain such a new resolution. I welcome our foreign minister's undertaking that this is going on and will continue to go on.

As I say, if it should become necessary to apply some form of military force, the Canadian role at the request of the United States is limited to auxiliary support operations. However even in roles for allies going beyond that, the rules of temperamenta belli apply. It is not a situation of operating in a legal vacuum.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.

Before I get into my remarks, I would like to congratulate the member for Davenport, the dean of the House, for his very thoughtful remarks a few minutes ago. I certainly hope that the prime minister was listening to those remarks on the need for more diplomatic efforts before any action is taken tomorrow in cabinet. The prime minister indicated that he was going to be listening very carefully to the debate tonight. The member for Davenport had some very important things to say to the prime minister.

This is a very important debate tonight. I am advised that there are some young Canadians in front of this building conducting a vigil on the Iraq situation. Clearly, Canadians are engaged as well in the debate.

Earlier in the evening the leader of our party outlined why military action proposed by the United States against Iraq is reckless and ill advised. She has explained why Canada should avoid the fatal mistake of agreeing to participate in such an action at this time.

My first point relates to the role of Parliament with respect to our role here as legislators in a sovereign country that must make its own decision. The U.S. secretary of state, Madam Albright, said last night that Canadians support her. Is she taking us for granted? Was it a misquote? Or does she know something that has been kept from the rest of us?

Canada is a sovereign country. We must make our own decisions, whether they be about the MAI or about our defence policy, peace and security in an increasingly uncertain world.

This party is saying that we need to give diplomacy more of a chance. Canada has a long and honourable tradition as a nation of diplomacy as has been noted earlier. We have just brokered an international treaty on the disposal of land mines. We did that even though our neighbour to the south did not approve and has not yet signed on. It was a proud moment.

Why do we now want to rush off to support an ill-advised military adventure proposed by the Americans?

And why do the Americans want our support so badly? Despite what we have heard from other parties tonight, the fact is that the United States does not have widespread support for taking military action at the present time against Iraq. The French are opposed. The Russians are opposed. The Chinese are opposed. Significantly the Arab countries in the Middle East are opposed.

In 1991 there was a bona fide coalition against Saddam Hussein. Today there is none. The United States is contemplating drastic action without much support from the world community. One might well ask what confluence of events in the United States is leading it into this strike at this time.

We have heard this evening without much backup as the member from the Bloc was indicating a little while ago about the involvement of the United Nations. Most of the remarks on the situation in Iraq are coming from Washington and not from New York where the United Nations is based. That poses a concern for us.

Whatever President Clinton's reason for considering military action, I suggest he wants Canada's approval and support precisely because we have a standing and reputation in the world community as an honest global citizen and he wishes to enlist our support for his plan.

Let me underscore again what the member for Halifax said about Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is a dictator and an abuser of human rights. She said that we have been clearly on record as supporting those UN resolutions that forbid Iraq from acquiring, manufacturing or using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. This is fully consistent with our policy of opposition to the manufacture, the proliferation and the use of nuclear weapons. Our party has long been on record on these issues and there can be no doubt about that.

The unsavoury nature of Saddam Hussein's character is not in doubt, but that is not really the point here. The question to ask is this: What is the point of Canadian participation in another bombing spree against Iraq? It is supposedly to find a way to secure Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions concerning the inspection and destruction of the country's chemical and biological weapons.

The sticky point seems to be the composition of the teams of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. It is clear that the American presence among the senior ranks of these inspectors is viewed as a provocation by the Iraqis. Surely an arrangement could be reached whereby both the U.S. and Iraq could be satisfied with the composition of an inspection team so that these inspections can continue. Could Canada not play a diplomatic role in this regard? The question to ask is whether the resumption of bombing is going to accomplish that objective or not.

The Mennonite Central Committee, a respected Canadian church organization with a long involvement in Iraq, has written the prime minister telling him that it does not believe bombing Iraq yet again will bring about compliance. This is what the Mennonite Central Committee had to say in a letter sent to the prime minister late last week:

The apparent intention of military action is to force Iraq's compliance of UN resolutions which require Iraq to destroy all weapons of mass destruction. But in statements made earlier this week, U.S. defence secretary William Cohen made it clear that military action will not bring a solution to the problem of Iraq's non-compliance. We must then ask why these measures are being so strongly considered and why Canada would consider lending its moral or even its substantial support to them.

In these circumstances, our caucus can only echo the pleas of the Mennonite Central Community which says in its letter to the prime minister “We urge you and your government to look for diplomatic ways of addressing the crisis”.

The gulf war in 1991 and seven subsequent years of military action and threats have done nothing to ease tensions between Iraq and the west. The approach taken by the United States has in fact allowed Saddam Hussein to strengthen his grip on power as he portrays himself as a victim of aggression at the hands of the United States.

There is a fear that further military action would simply allow Saddam Hussein to play this old card yet again. It is not only church and peace groups that hold this analysis. Allow me to refer to General Norman Schwarzkopf who has been referred to earlier this evening.

The general told a British newspaper, the Guardian that further bombing of Iraq would have no effect on Hussein's defiance of the UN disarmament regime imposed on Iraq following the 1991 gulf war. Schwarzkopf warned that American bombing of Iraq might well smash the fragile international coalition that has supported sanctions against Iraq.

We in this caucus are sceptical whether further military action at this time against Iraq will work. It will cause untold death and suffering to people who have already suffered greatly. Rather than weakening it will only secure Hussein in his position.

I repeat that from our caucus we are saying no bombing now, no Canadian compliance yet to the United States request. Efforts should be redoubled, diplomacy given a real chance and a multilateral solution sought.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate because it is a very important one.

The motion before us is whether or not we accept the invitation of the U.S. government to participate in possible military actions in the Middle East. The question that each and every one of us in the House has to ask ourselves is whether or not the proposed military action will actually solve the problem we are facing in Iraq and the Middle East and whether or not it will get us any further ahead.

We heard earlier today in the debate from our leader, the member for Halifax and from the member for Palliser that the NDP's point of view is a resounding no in this invitation. We say no because we understand and see what the legacy has been in our previous military conflicts in the area. The military action that has happened in the past has led to untold civilian deaths. We are also very concerned about the environmental implications of blowing up facilities and sites that contain deadly biochemicals, biological and chemical weapons.

Today the largest peace organization, the Canadian Peace Alliance, in a press release urged parliamentarians in the House to turn down the invitation and the pressure from the United States to become involved in military action. It knows, as growing numbers of Canadians know, that to rush into this kind of military madness means we are not placing enough energy, work and emphasis on what can be very significant diplomatic processes which by any means have not been exhausted. If one looks at a history of the gulf war and the gulf situation, Canada unfortunately has been part of an international process. We have actually broken our commitment since the 1991 gulf war to promote a regional peace process.

If the experience of the gulf war tells us anything, it is that a tragic legacy was left with 600,000 children dead. Some 1.2 million civilians have died from malnutrition and another 4 million people are at risk. They are severely malnourished because of the sanctions.

The Geneva conventions prohibit the destruction of vital systems for civilian populations. In the gulf war we saw that 84% of the infrastructure, like generating plants, water systems and sewage systems, were destroyed. These are the basic necessities of human life and survival. This is the real legacy of the military conflict in Iraq and in the Middle East.

We have to ask the question in the House why the Canadian government is even thinking of taking us down this path again. Listening to the debate today we are appalled to hear the position of the Reform Party. It basically comes out with a statement that says to kill people, to engage in military conflict, is all right if it means that somehow we will resolve this conflict. We reject the approach being put forward by the Reform Party.

We have to ask ourselves why it is the U.S. government is pushing a unilateral military solution. Is it to divert attention from domestic affairs, or is it really part of what has been a mounting campaign to assert U.S. control and military supremacy egged on by the arms dealers and the profiteers from civilian deaths? We too have a responsibility for the current crisis because we in Canada, our Canadian government, allows more than $1 billion worth of military exports to this area of conflict.

We have to say that military actions only serve themselves. They do not solve the problems before us and will only lead to further conflict. Therefore we must reject the invitation from Mr. Clinton. Canadians must stand firm and push the American government to back away from the brink of yet another gulf war.

We must do that by actively supporting the United Nations and multilateral efforts to develop workable diplomatic solutions. We must work to involve other countries, not just the United States, in the inspection process and to end American dominance in the process.

Canada has the credibility and the record to accomplish this kind of objective. We have seen that with the work that was done on land mines. We have seen that we have the credibility to seek an alternate path rather than military conflict.

In coming here tonight to this debate I was remembering back to the gulf war. During that war young people set up a peace tent outside Vancouver City Hall because they were distressed by what they saw as growing military escalation they had no part of and the leaders of the country were taking us into.

The question today is what do we teach our kids? Are we as Canadians willing to truly and genuinely work for global disarmament and global security, or will we sit by and participate with the American government in this growing escalation and conflict? The horror of the war is borne by those who survive the death of their loved ones and the destruction of their homes and communities.

The dictator this is meant to be about—and let us not forget it—retains power and grows even stronger. We need aggressive diplomacy. We need tough negotiations, for example, to encourage Iraq to come forward with compliance by agreeing to a timetable to end economic sanctions. We should be part of a middle power effort to bring about diplomatic solutions.

I have a question for the prime minister. Does the government have the guts and the courage to work for a peaceful solution? Does it seek to work for global disarmament? Will the Government of Canada rush to the slippery slope of human destruction based on military might?

We in the NDP implore the government to stop, to count to 10 and stop this madness of impending war. Canada will not be better off. The people of Iraq will not be better off. Nor will global security be better off. That is why the motion and the invitation have to be rejected.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga West. The United States has formally requested Canada's assistance in a possible air strike against Iraq, enforcing Iraq to uphold United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Although the United States has not requested combat troops, it has requested non-combative military support. Before any military support or actions could ensue, and in the hope of protection for innocent victims, we must carefully examine the ramifications of a possible air strike.

Canada has set examples through its peacekeeping forces and through initiatives such as removing land mines to make the world free and allow children to run. It will continue to protect innocent victims from being persecuted by any force in many corners of the globe.

It is, however, in our best interest and in the interest of those directly affected to work toward a workable diplomatic solution to this situation. In the event of diplomatic failure we must act as a conscientious nation, believing in peace, order and responsible government. We must stand behind the United Nations to protect the lives of innocent people.

Nuclear development by Iraq and the continual creation of germ warfare technologies by Dr. Germ is something we cannot overlook. It cannot be overlooked by the United Nations, Canada or any other nation.

Based on precedence alone, the United Nations cannot stand by and allow Saddam Hussein to continue his production of tools of mass destruction.

We are dealing with a man of no conscience. Saddam Hussein is a leader who has repressed his own people and viciously attacked the peoples of surrounding countries. Therefore we cannot sit by naively in the hopes that his development of nuclear warfare will have no grave repercussions all around the world.

We must not lose sight of Saddam Hussein's wanton and reckless aggression. He turned chemical weapons upon his own people in Iraq in 1988 with complete disregard for human life.

In 1991 Saddam Hussein launched Scud missiles against Saudi Arabia and Israel. By all accounts he is continuing to develop tools of destruction and the means to deliver them. Other nations are guilty by association and by helping his supply. This is all in direct violation of explicit UN security council resolutions.

Israel suffered 39 Scud missile attacks during the gulf war. The population had to don gas masks. It was traumatic. It is reported by the United Nations chief arms inspectors in Iraq that Israel is to be a potential target of Iraqi missiles, this time, however, armed with chemical weapons which could wipe out large segments of its population and potentially that of others in the surrounding areas.

The possibility of such an attack is frightening beyond measure. The world has never been faced with such a threat or such a horrific form of devastation.

It is for those reasons we must make a call to the world to force Saddam Hussein to respect United Nations resolutions. The need for the international community including Canada to confront and stop Iraq is a necessity for all those who are concerned with global peace and security.

I was in synagogue at 7.30 this morning saying memorial prayers for my late sister, Joan Abbey Pass, and my late Uncle Nathan Cummings. A young man, David Schneiderman, was there also for his late dad. He read a poem that I feel is pertinent to the grave situation we face tonight. It is called “Why Do We Pray”. It is an excerpt from “When Bad Things Happen to Good People” by Harold Kushner and reads:

We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end war; For we know that You have made the world in a way That man must find his own path to peace Within himself and his neighbour.

We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end starvation For You have already given us the resources With which to feed the entire world If we would only use them wisely.

We cannot pray to You, O God, to root out prejudice For You have already given us eyes With which to see the good in all people If we would only use them rightly.

We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end despair, For You have already given us the power To clear away slums and to give hope If we would only use our power justly.

We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end disease, For You have already given us great minds with which to search out cures and healing If we would only use them constructively.

Therefore we pray to You instead, O God For strength, determination and will power, To do instead of to just pray; To become instead of merely to wish.

I believe that U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spoke unequivocally about the reality of Saddam Hussein when she called the Iraqi president a liar, an obstructionist. I wish he would listen and would read this prayer and put it into practice. When she was talking about his approach to arms inspection she said he had lied, delayed, obstructed and tried to deceive.

Our foreign affairs minister and our prime minister have said that the conduct of the Government of Iraq is not acceptable at this point. All of us favour long term stability in the Middle East and the building of a safe, secure and economically viable region for all people who choose to live there. Therefore we must find the means to apply effective international pressure on Saddam Hussein and stop his never ending challenge to the UN arms inspectors and his ignoring of the United Nations and the development of potential horrendous death weapons.

In the end it is the Arab Middle East which faces the gravest danger of weapons of mass destruction. That is why we must stand behind the United Nations in order to secure peace and stability for our world and generations to come. Let us home Saddam Hussein comes to his senses and let some nations of the world stop selling them arms. Let our diplomacy work in the interest of all mankind.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all let me say that unlike other times in my brief stay in this place, this is not an issue that I rise with any sense of joy to debate or discuss. Frankly, I see it as less of a debate and perhaps more putting on the record our feelings as parliamentarians and living up to our responsibilities. I am sure there is no one in this place who is particularly enjoying this evening's discussion.

As our Prime Minister said, we are at least debating this issue in advance of a decision. There are some who might cast aspersions on that, but I believe that to be the case. I believe that is truly one of the many principles that make us uniquely Canadian.

It is the Canadian way in terms of one of the differences. In a story I was told the distance between the government benches and the opposition benches is the distance between two people standing on the edge with a sword extended in each hand, and the tips of the swords merely touch. It is a symbolism that we are not a warring people, that we tend to fight our battles in places like this, that our weapons are our minds, that our ammunition is words and that our victims often are simply ideas and not people. At the same time, our victories are also the result of those ideas and hopefully in some cases the implementation of them.

We are not by nature a warring people. Often we seek consensus first, we seek compromise and we always seek a negotiated settlement. In my view, we will continue to live by and large by those very basic Canadian principles. Diplomacy is job one in Canada and with our representatives around the world.

Reality, however, says that to maintain our principles and our way of life we may, from time to time, when our backs are to the wall, when consensus is not possible, when compromise has failed and when negotiations have ended, be forced to make a difficult decision. This, in our great democracy, is one of those times, sadly.

In determining what message I wanted to share with members in this place and with Canadians watching this evening, particularly those in my riding, I talked with and asked a good friend of mine, the member for Thornhill, about some of the issues. She talked about how seven years ago people from her riding watched on CNN as people were huddled in shelters, wearing gas masks, as Tel Aviv was being bombed by scud missiles.

We all know that certainly one of the major targets of Saddam Hussein happens to be Israel. She made the point to me that there are people in her riding, and in mine, Shaarei synagogue, who would be looking at that and seeing their friends and families in jeopardy and who would be worried about them from seven years ago. Today, seven years later, they see the very same situation, not quite there yet, but people lining up to get gas masks.

What an incredible sight in 1998, in this world that is fundamentally so small, to see civilians lining up to get gas masks in anticipation of chemical warfare. How can we tolerate that? When compromise, as I said, has failed, then we have to look at what else might take its place.

I also talked with a good friend, an Ottawa cab driver. He name is Mel. Mel is from Lebanon. He pointed out to me how Lebanon becomes the battleground of many of the wars that go on in the Middle East and the terrible travesty, the pain, the killing, the death and the suffering that goes on in his country. He pleaded with me to stand here and say please, everybody, just stop the killing. It is easy to say. In an ideal world we would all love to be able to do that, whether it was in the Middle East, Ireland or wherever it was in this world. I said to Mel I am not sure I know how to do that.

How will military action put an end to this? Only if it is united, only if it is strong and only if every other avenue of diplomacy, compromise and consensus building has failed and we go united to solve this problem once and for all.

We are in a partnership. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot be part of NATO and rely on the protection of NATO forces and the protection of our neighbour to the south, and our relationship with them, and then, when a moment of conflict arises say sorry, we are just simply not going to be part of that.

What President Clinton has apparently asked for, we are told, is support. He is not looking for frontline troops. I regret and I fear that day may come. I suppose in reality it is very possible.

The fact is there are men and women who have fought tyranny in this country, grandfathers, parents, aunts and uncles of many of us here, who have died for democracy, for the principles of consensus, of compromise and of negotiated settlements.

That is fine when we are talking about peacetime. We are not talking about a strike here or a labour negotiation. We are talking about an individual who simply refuses, having been given every reasonable opportunity, to comply not with a dictate from Bill Clinton, not with a dictate from the Prime Minister or from the United Kingdom, but with the United Nations resolution that clearly says that chemical weapons should be banned. He refuses to allow independent United Nations teams access to places where we fear he is storing these weapons.

Will he use them? I do not think there is a doubt in the world. If we are as a free society to back down from this tyranny, all other avenues having failed, I think we do a terrible disservice to our children who trust us to make these decisions. I hope and I pray that they are the right decisions.

But at the end of the day, in addition to the principles that I have talked about, I believe there is one fundamentally strong, clear and concise Canadian principle that we all must live with and that is that we back our friends and we support them, not in all things, not if we believe they are wrong. But in this case the evidence is irrefutable.

The worldwide stage is so small that anyone can see that Saddam Hussein is poised at whatever moment we know not to use whatever weapons we know not, with no compunction. It is very frightening to live in a world like that.

I would say to those who stand and speak in all sincerity that I do not doubt their sincerity, I do not doubt their passion, I do not doubt their desire for peace. I do not doubt that there is not one single person in this place who would ever want to see this country go to war. I do not think that there are war mongers in here. But I do believe that when we cut through all the passion we hear that we should simply keep taking, that there must come a point when we recognize Saddam Hussein is not listening and that we are jeopardizing the safety of not only the Middle East, Israel and Lebanon but indeed of Canada.

I for one will not sit and do nothing and pray that we will continue to have meetings and discussions. I for one believe that what our Prime Minister and our cabinet will be deciding tomorrow will be extremely important, and I support that decision wholeheartedly.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with my hon. colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska.

It is with a sense of regret that I rise before this House today because today the Government of Canada has agreed to send troops into harm's way. Do not get me wrong, I have learned the lessons this century has taught. I understand that when tyranny is permitted to reign the entire world is in danger. I understand that when freedom is confronted with danger, action must be taken. It is not this government's decision that offends Canadians, it is the way this decision was made.

Last week in this House my party put forward a motion to have a debate in this House as to whether Canada would participate in a U.S. led action against Iraq. The government turned down the motion and dismissed it as hypothetical. The Minister of Foreign Affairs went on national television and said: “You can't make a decision until you know what is being decided”. It is words like those that instil confidence in the hearts of all Canadians.

Now we know what has been decided upon. Unfortunately for this House and, more important, unfortunately for all Canadians, what was decided came not from the Prime Minister's office. Canada's decision came directly from the White House in Washington D.C. Now, as all Canadians are aware, it is because President Clinton phoned the Prime Minister to ask for a favour that we meet in this Chamber to discuss what our nation's role should be.

It is not because the Prime Minister understood last week that there was a perilous situation growing in the Persian Gulf that might affect the lives of young Canadians. It is not because the Prime Minister has foresight that we are here. It is not because the Prime Minister wants to take a stand for what is right that we are here. We are here because President Bill Clinton asked the Prime Minister to do him a favour.

We are thankful that the Prime Minister has finally understood that Canada should have a role, that there are dangers in the world and obliged the president. Our only concern is that Canada's leaders do not have the understanding or the courage to assure Canadians what our role will be.

Tonight's debate in this Chamber is an excellent example of how this Liberal government simply does not respect the people it represents. We have entered into a debate over the most important decision a government will ever have to make, whether to send Canada's young men and women into harm's way. Remember that the government agreed to the American request because there is a danger in the region, there is a threat of war. As much as it is a terrible thought, when there is a war there is a danger of people dying.

This government thinks this is a serious enough matter to send Canadians into harm's way but it does not think it is serious enough to introduce a votable motion for tonight's debate. It does not think it is serious enough to allow members to question government ministers and this government does not think sending young Canadians into harm's way is important enough to ensure that at least 20 members are in this Chamber to debate this issue.

I rose to speak about Canada's preparedness for this mission. I wanted to ask the government what forces Canada had and if they would be ready to go. I have so many questions for this government but it will not answer. For example, the 1994 white paper on defence calls for the Canadian forces to be able to deploy a joint task force headquarters and a naval task group, three separate battle groups or a brigade group, a wing of fighter aircraft and one squadron of tactical transport aircraft. I wanted to ask this government if it had fulfilled these white paper requirements and if Canada had these forces in place, but there is nobody on the government side to answer.

I wanted to ask if we had land forces available and, if so, what units? Do we have air forces available and, if so, what units? Do we have sea forces available and, if so, what units? There is nobody on the government side of the House to answer my questions and they are relevant questions.

For example, what is the status of our biological and chemical defence? Do we have an antidote on hand for anthrax and VX gas? How many Canadian forces personnel have recently completed the desert warfare course? What is the extent of our nuclear, biological and chemical weapons defences?

I do not raise these questions to scare Canadians. I raise these questions so the government will have the opportunity to reassure our forces and their families that Canada's government is looking out for them and will take all the required measures to ensure that they will be as safe as possible. I wonder why the prime minister has not reminded this House that the first time poison gas was used in warfare was against the Canadian troops in World War I.

We are sending troops to a region because Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons. I hope this government understands its responsibility. Yet, we know that these decisions are tough for this Liberal government. Time ran out when the president phoned. The government does not have time to take a public opinion poll. A request is on the table that the prime minister cannot duck. There is no place to hide. He will have to make a decision and he will have to act.

While there is no place to hide, there is a place to stand. On principle. This is not familiar ground with this Liberal government. It is new for this government, especially when standing on principle happens to mean standing with Britain and the United States.

Let me try to be helpful. Let us make things easier for the government. It does not have to declare its support for the United States. Instead, it can declare its support for the United Nations, for the rule of law and for the principles of civilized, responsible state behaviour.

Iraq is an aggressor. It was punished in 1991 and it remains outside the community of nations because it refuses to meet its obligations under UN security council resolutions. Those resolutions remain in force to this day.

Therefore, the choice of the government should not have been so tough. It can put Canada on the side of those who take the 1991 UN resolutions on Iraq seriously, including the enforcement of those resolutions, or it can put Canada on the side of those who want to minimize the importance of the United Nations.

Being on the side of principle will not burden or diminish military too much. After all, we have been asked to make a reasonably small contribution to the effort and support of the integrity of those security council resolutions.

Is this government prepared to take those resolutions seriously or it is prepared to see them continuously ignored?

It has never been clear to us on this side of the House whether it is the Liberal view that Canada should always look the other way or that Canada should align itself with those whose belief, when faced with lawlessness, is that it is always better to wait and talk and, when faced with real trouble, stick one's head in the sand. If so, it would be consistent with where they have been in the past on this very issue.

After all, it was the prime minister who, when he was leader of the opposition, called for all Canadian forces to return to Canada as soon as the first shots in the 1991 gulf war were fired. I hope the courage he is displaying today will remain with him if diplomacy does fail and if shots are fired again. He will need courage. All of Canada and all of the world will need courage because when shots are fired there is no telling how Saddam will respond. That is precisely why Canada must take part.

Standing on principle is new territory for the leader of the Liberal Party. However, if he stands strong, my party will be his ally, and all those who love justice will side with him and he will see that his footing will be strong.

As Canada embarks on this journey with its allies, I want to take this opportunity to assure all those who love peace in Compton-Stanstead, across Quebec, in Canada and around the world that the lessons of this century have not been forgotten. When tyranny is permitted to reign, the entire world is in danger. When freedom is confronted with danger, action must be taken. Have confidence that Canada is on the good side.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by very briefly addressing three major items.

First, the topic of this evening's debate. This is not a debate, essentially, because there is no opposition of ideas. It is more like a confessional, where everyone goes to relate his petty sins and what he thinks about the Iraq situation. We are extremely disappointed.

Since February 1, we have asked to meet with the Minister of Foreign Affairs—a meeting that was held on Sunday, February 1—with the Minister of National Defence, and with the Prime Minister. They refused, claiming there was no emergency. We also called for an emergency debate in the House, and that too was refused.

As we have seen in the Prime Minister's statement, they are now telling us this evening “We need you, parliamentarians. Parliament does not know what to do, has no position, so now we need you”. That was the purpose of this evening's debate.

When the Prime Minister started to speak, his words seemed more like a declaration of war than anything else. We were given an official position to the effect that Canada was going to support the United States, not the United Nations but the United States, for an armed intervention in Iraq. If you look at what has been said in declarations of war over the last hundred years, what the Prime Minister had to say was similar. “I have no position. I need you.”

When the hon. member for Sherbrooke said that the government had no position, the Minister of Foreign Affairs replied that he had not listened to the Prime Minister, that it did have a position. When the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke, he said “We have no position. We need you”. I think the government has a real problem of credibility, particularly on the international scene.

The current Minister of Foreign Affairs, who then sat in opposition, asked the government of the time to give the assurance that it would not engage in or support any offensive action without first getting the consent of the House, and that such action would be under the aegis of the United Nations.

For the House to give its consent, we must have something to vote on. But I will get back to this later on. It is said that the famous UN Resolution 687 authorizes any intervention. Today, I asked a question in the House regarding this issue. I asked what interpretation the Minister of Foreign Affairs was giving to the resolution.

Again, the resolution was adopted on April 3, 1991. It is not a new resolution. It is reviewed every six months, but it is not a new resolution. It is the resolution which, among other things, asked all countries to leave Iraq and Kuwait.

It provides that all countries must leave Iraq and Kuwait, that the territorial integrity is recognized and must now be preserved. It is a very long resolution which also says we can intervene. At the time, the five major countries on the UN Security Council—China, France, Russia, England and the United States—were all in agreement. Today, China, France and Russia do not agree.

So, before saying we are going to use this resolution to intervene in Iraq, perhaps it might be appropriate to find out, through diplomatic channels, what the Russians, the French and the Chinese are going to do. Will they submit a resolution to the Security Council calling for an amendment to Resolution 687 in the days to come?

Today, questions were put to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He does not seem to be up on things. He says: “Yes, but you know it is not easy”. They seem to be saying we must hurry up and invade Iraq, teach Saddam Hussein a lesson, because there is a danger that Resolution 687 might no longer apply or might be amended.

What we still want is for the government to sit down with parliamentarians. We learned this evening that the foreign affairs committee would be discussing the issue tomorrow.

Once again, I would like to digress for a minute. We were told that the foreign affairs committee might be discussing this issue tomorrow afternoon. There will apparently be a briefing on the Iraq issue. This evening the Prime Minister told us that cabinet would be adopting a position tomorrow morning. The foreign affairs committee will be receiving a briefing, after the government has adopted a position. This is backwards. It makes no sense. It is unbelievable.

Our position remains unchanged. We support the government's position—not that you have one, but the one you are supposed to have. We have a position.

What we are asking you to do is perhaps to share information. This way, you will have the support of this House, which you do not have right now.

Regarding the resolution, I would like for it to be quoted. Also, the Minister of Foreign Affairs should take a clear position with respect to China, Russia and France. And I would like to know, when he has discussions with his counterparts in these three countries about amending Resolution 687, is it only for diplomacy's sake, for publicity, a marketing ploy?

I cannot say that diplomacy is the minister's forte this evening, at least not today. Did you see the reaction the Minister of Foreign Affairs right after his speech, following the hon. member for Sherbrooke? Would you call that diplomacy? As we say where I come from, he lost it. He had a fit on an issue that is not one in this House. What will he do before the security council? How will he deal with China and Russia?

We are quite prepared to co-operate. We did, and so did our leader on Sunday, February 1, when he phoned the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead put in calls to the office of the defence minister. Calls were made on Sunday, February 1, but unfortunately, the minister was away on business. That is understandable. But no one could be reached. On Monday, we were told there was no big rush, that a meeting could be arranged if we wanted one. The United States beat the Government of Canada to it in offering us a briefing. So, I think there are problems.

I want to mention two things in closing, so as not to take too long. I have another quote. I know the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not really like that, but I am going to go ahead with it. In February 1992, following the conflict, the minister, who was a member at the time, said: “It is important for Canada to have a policy in this area. It is important for Canadians to know what policy the federal government will adopt when it is involved in major international initiatives. It is vital we know what goals, objectives and values motivate and colour this sort of initiative. It is not a matter of automatically responding. It is a matter of making choices and decisions and holding a proper public debate”.

I think the minister had the opportunity today to act in accordance with he said in 1990, 1991 and 1992. He did not, and it is very unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to put the following motion:

That, when the Government of Canada decides on its reply to the request of the president of the United States for assistance in the Iraqi crisis, the prime minister shall announce that policy to the House of Commons by way of ministerial statement and immediately thereafter there shall be a special question period for not longer than 45 minutes for questions from all parties.

Why? Because we want assurance from the government and the Prime Minister that, before Mr. Clinton, Mr. Blair or whoever is informed of Canada's position, the members of this House will be told. Furthermore, if the government wants the approval of this House, as did at the time the member for Winnipeg South Centre, now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, let it bring this motion before the House for debate and a vote. A little solidarity and a little parliamentary work will not hurt.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, there is not unanimous consent.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, needless to say, this is a very important issue which is before the House tonight. I personally want to say how proud I am that we are having this debate.

We faced the same issue in 1991.

The member for Richmond—Arthabaska appears not to have been aware, nor does his leader, who was in the cabinet of the government at the time, appear to have made him aware of the fact that a commitment was made by the government of the day to send Canadian men and women into armed combat without one second of debate in this House.

The debate did not take place until 12 days after that commitment was made by the predecessor of the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Commons today who was in the cabinet at the time. He should know better than to make some of the comments he made today unless he wants to rewrite history.

There is no question that it is a horrific decision a government has to make any time it is called on to put its people and their lives on the line in a situation of military conflict. It is a horrific decision because when the weapons come out, people die.

It is a horrific decision because, as we look at the possibility of bombings in Iraq in the near future, we know that some of those bombs are going to be there to destroy chemical and biological weapons and that very destruction is going to release harmful substances into the world.

It is a horrific situation because when you get into a situation like that, you never know how far it is going to expand, what other conflict it is going to ignite.

All but one of the constituents who phoned me today about this issue and about the debate tonight said please let Canada continue its efforts toward a diplomatic solution. I do not think there is any question in this House that is the preferred solution. I do not think there is any question that is the preferred solution for our government. But there comes a time when diplomatic initiatives require the pure and sure and certain knowledge on the other side that we are prepared to act if those diplomatic initiatives are not successful in achieving the desired goal.

Let me be clear in the way I see the situation. Shortly after the gulf war of 1991, the United Nations imposed economic sanctions on Iraq and it put clearly in the hands of Saddam Hussein the ability to remove those economic sanctions, the ability to again have food, medicine, economic products flowing freely into Iraq. The UN insisted on only one condition, the full and complete removal or destruction of all weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Since 1991 the ability to end the economic sanctions, the ability to again resume trade and the economic benefits that it would bring to the people of Iraq has been squarely in the hands of the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. Instead of co-operating with the United Nations to ensure the identification, the destruction, the removal of those weapons, he has lied, he has denied and he has defied the will of the nations of the world as expressed through United Nations resolutions.

We know that there are horrendous amounts of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq thanks to the determination of a multi-nation, United Nations force in there to try and give effect to that 1991 resolution. But seven years later they are still being denied access to such things as, imagine this, one factory three kilometres by six kilometres capable of producing 50,000 litres of anthrax, botulinum and other weapons of destruction.

We have talked about how many millions of people could be killed by one missile carrying these kinds of chemical and biological weapons. What we have not yet talked about is that this kind of weapon knows no borders. Botulinum and anthrax do not stop at the population they were initially intended to kill, to kill without destroying property. This to me is a very obscene kind of weapon when we deliberately target human life in a way that will ensure that property is not destroyed.

I think Canada has no choice but to let Iraq and Saddam Hussein know that the world will stand behind this UN resolution, that we will continue our diplomatic efforts, but that in the end we will not allow this build-up of human destruction to continue. As we face this decision, I hope we think beyond it as well. Frankly, I hope we never have to implement it, but I also hope we think beyond it. I think all Canadians were proud of this country and the leadership role it took in barely a year, bringing to fruition a world ban on the production, use and sale of land mines.

I think the situation in Iraq forces us to ask ourselves some other very difficult questions and realize that the problem we are dealing with in Iraq will not be solved only in Iraq. We have to deal with why, how and who provided the chemicals and the ingredients that have allowed Saddam Hussein to build up this arsenal of death.

If we are serious about the debate we are having tonight and if the world is serious about how drastic the situation in Iraq is, we must ask ourselves where else the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are in this world. If they are that much of a threat in Iraq, what are we going to do about the threat they pose across the world? We must ask ourselves what other weapons are being stockpiled around the world, often with the help of some of the countries that now want to resolve the situation in Iraq.

Finally, I think it is important that Canada put its moral influence behind the last and hopefully successful efforts at diplomacy. It is important that a nation like Canada, not just the big powers, is part of this. We have never been an imperial force. We have never been a military force capable of wreaking havoc and domination on other nations. We have always been that middle power, that voice of reason in international affairs.

I hope that our being part of this last effort toward a diplomatic solution will be an important signal to other nations.

I want to ask one final thing of our government. There is still tremendous concern about many of our veterans who served in the gulf war in 1991, about the impacts on their personal health and safety from the chemical weapons they faced.

I would ask our minister of defence to make sure we have a plan in place before we send any troops into the Middle East, if that becomes necessary, to protect their health and to ensure that we look after them when they return if they have been damaged by their exposure in the Middle East. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this debate tonight.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the Prime Minister for allowing this debate and also for allowing members such as me to express their individual opinions freely and openly and according to individual conscience.

I do not necessarily share the majority view of my colleagues from my own party but I must speak out in the way I feel. The question is this.

Should we or should we not participate in a U.S. led military operation and provide the U.S. with the logistic support it is asking for?

If ever there was a consensus in this debate, it is around zero tolerance for Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, brutality, savagery and cowardice and his systematic violation of human rights, especially those of the Kurdish people. We cannot let Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government continue to defy United Nations resolutions and inspection teams with impunity. We cannot let Iraq and the Iraqi government continue to produce chemical and biological weapons capable of killing people by the millions around the world.

While there is a widespread consensus about the Iraqi dictatorship, that of Saddam Hussein, there is no consensus on the approach to convincing the Iraqi dictator and his government to do as democracy would dictate, yield to reason and comply with UN resolutions.

I have to admit, and I find it very sad to do so, that the United States has gradually become the lone ranger of the new world order. It seems to me, fond as I am of the United States and Americans, that since Eisenhower, with the brief exception of Jimmy Carter, all U.S. presidents seemed to have sought their own shoot-outs at the O.K. Corral, believing as they seem to do that U.S. might is inevitably right.

Unfortunately their shoot-outs have had far more serious consequences to the international world order than that at the O.K. Corral. They have known the Bay of Pigs under President Kennedy, the Vietnam war under President Johnson and the amplification of the Vietnam war by the massive bombing of Laos and Cambodia under Nixon, the brief respite under Jimmy Carter followed by the invasion of Grenada under President Reagan. Of course, there was the Iran Contra operation and, more recently under President Bush, Panama and of course the 1991 gulf war.

It seems to me, listening to the news, that President Clinton and his cabinet are sparring for another fight, almost brimming with eagerness to take on another shoot-out, this time against Iraq.

Let us give President Bush his due. Iraq had invaded a neighbouring country and the military operation to free Kuwait was sanctioned fully by the United Nations.

Several Arab countries supported the deployment of troops to the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia had agreed to let its territory be used for that purpose.

Today's reality is completely different. There is no invasion threat by Iraq, which does not have the capacity to do it. There is considerable diplomatic activity and pressure led by important nations such as Russia and France, members of the security council.

There is no clear support at the UN, in the world at large and certainly not in the Arab world. Saudi Arabia at this time refuses the use of its territory to any military operation.

The only countries supporting the United States are the United Kingdom, which has been traditionally tied to the U.S. by a special friendship, and to a lesser extent Germany. Under the circumstances, why should we accept to participate in a potential military operation?

Time calls for caution. I back the words of my colleague for Davenport for caution, restraint and for continuing diplomatic activity and pressure, in which we should play a leading role. We should have nothing to do with any bombing or military operation, massive or otherwise, which experts hold will not change the reality and displace Saddam Hussein. It will only provoke international unrest and cause an untold number of human lives to be lost.

Further, we should ask this question. Does the U.S. really need our logistic support to carry out this operation? The U.S., a mighty formidable power with its own military and logistic systems, does not need us. What it needs is our name on its sparse shopping list, to add one more country to the two that already support it to beef it up.

Given the reality of today's conditions, the example which should inspire us is that of Lester Pearson. I recall clearly, during the Vietnam war, on U.S. territory, when he directly addressed President Johnson, and said “your military operation flies in the face of common sense, of respect for human life and world opinion”.

I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to tell President Clinton that his request is premature and that all diplomatic avenues have yet to be explored. Given our tremendous international credibility we should use it and become the leader in exerting diplomatic pressures on Iraq. We should join Russia, France, Germany and others to urge them to obey the world order. I urge caution, restraint and continuing diplomatic pressure.

The answer we should give President Clinton is until all these avenues have been explored and exhausted, we must defer any intervention on our part. For the time being we should say no.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with representatives of all the parties in the House and I believe you would find consent for the following:

That for the remainder of the debate on the motion now before the House, the Speaker shall not entertain any requests for the proposal of proceedings by unanimous consent.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent of the House for the government whip to move this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for a strong and determined effort to force Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations security council resolutions.

It is my hope that diplomatic efforts will bring about a resolution to this crisis first. However, if diplomacy fails, Canada has a moral obligation to support her allies in a military strike against Saddam Hussein.

I have listened to the dissertations of many in this House over the course of the evening. The one that particularly comes to mind is that presented by the member for Vancouver East, an NDP member, who really felt it was inappropriate to give support to this particular motion and to give support to our allies, the United States and the United Kingdom, in their efforts to enforce this resolution.

This world is becoming a more dangerous place. If you look at the events that are taking place throughout the world, it is clear that, one by one, conflicts are being added to conflicts as each year goes by.

I can recall a recent conversation with ex-military personnel who brought certain points to my attention about conflict areas in this world. It is incumbent upon those who are not the creators of these conflicts to stand firm, to be prepared and to assist those who may have a need against some aggressor.

The NDP member felt that there should be no action taken. I would like the NDP member for Vancouver East to talk to her colleague from Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar who was assaulted at one point in time while walking home innocently along a street here in Ottawa.

There is a need to check the aggression of some individuals in this country, in this community, and certainly in the world. I think of the need for a good, efficient, well-armed police department to be able to handle every affair that comes along that may threaten or jeopardize the peace. That also applies to a well-equipped military to deal with those offenders, if you will, of international peace.

I believe that is where Canada should play a part with our allies to check the aggression of some of those on an international level that will choose to inflict their will upon someone else. I believe Canada has a moral obligation to do that, that we must lend military support as well as political support, that we must put an end, with our allies, to terrorism internationally.

There is no question that our government has a responsibility to be clear with all Canadians on the status of this situation before us. It calls for assistance from our allies. I know to date this government has not made that commitment to action in Iraq and is still contemplating that matter. I think it is important that the Canadian government stand up and voice its support to take action against Saddam Hussein.

I recall from the 1991 situation where Canada stood behind our NATO allies to approach that conflict in an aggressive manner. Saddam Hussein had to be stopped. I recall that there were many within the Arab community in our country who had concerns about that, that there seemed to be this effort on the part of Canada supporting the United States which was supporting Israel. That is not what it is all about. It is about an aggressor who is trying to inflict his will upon someone else uninvited.

I think that to our Arab friends it should be made clear why Canada supported the U.S. and other NATO countries in attacking Saddam Hussein. It can only be answered because it is Canada's moral obligation to do so, to rid the world of a threat to world peace.

Second, I think it is important for those who are from the region who immigrated to Canada to understand that action taken against a man like Saddam Hussein is not an intent to punish those in the region or even in Iraq, but to target a despot who is attempting to disrupt peace. Saddam Hussein has made no effort in sparing even his own people in strong action, in violating their rights as human beings and even destroying them.

Again, I am encouraging the Liberal government to take a strong position. I know it will be deliberating this evening and tomorrow over this matter. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to offer our opinions as it has requested and our support.

It is interesting to note that the British government had this debate some weeks ago. It was very clear in my reading of the Hansard responses to the Iraqi situation upon viewing the UN report about the accumulation of various weapons that Saddam Hussein had been engaged in. The government came out very clear on the position that it was going to take. It opened itself up to questions. It sought a very legitimate line of questioning from all the opposition parties.

I know the government side here has chosen not to do that. Be that as it may, I think this does spell out a much greater openness. It offers greater support in a very timely fashion. It certainly allays the fears of those who may have questions that are unanswered in this debate. The British cabinet went through its procedure and opened up the matter. It was on the public record.

From the very beginning, in spite of the fact that the British government had deployed some of its troops, one aircraft carrier into the gulf and one on its way, it still supported diplomatic resolution to the crisis. That is important.

I believe it is necessary for Canada to involve itself with the United States and the United Kingdom as a show of support. I believe Germany is also onside now. Saddam Hussein will have to think twice if he intends to obstruct those who are on the UN inspection team. He will have to think twice and open his door again. I think that is the intent of this unified effort.

It must also be clear to Saddam Hussein that if he rejects the request by our allies, then strong action will be taken. For the most part it is much easier to convince a dictator to comply if you have an aircraft carrier sitting off the coast and the threat is immediate.

I know that we have an opportunity to deploy our military in support. I believe from my examination of the military, and I am not saying I am an expert, we have very well equipped troops in some areas. I believe those troops should be offered. I am sure when the government makes its decision it will do so in that support. I am trusting that will happen.

Let us deal with the argument that we have been asked to bow to every American whim. It has been raised a couple of times, once on the government side and once or twice over here. Proponents of this view argue that President Clinton is simply trying to deflect attention from his own domestic troubles.

This statement came up in debate in the British parliament. It became pretty clear that British parliamentarians would not buy that statement at all. Prime Minister Blair and the secretary of state clearly pointed out that the threat was immediate and against those in the region as well as anyone in Europe. Who was to say that some terrorist would not move weapons of mass destruction that can easily be transported into Great Britain?

That debate took place and the question was answered in this fashion. UN inspectors, which consisted of the British, the Americans and others, were prohibited by Saddam Hussein from inspecting sites that were believed to have certain agents which could possibly be used in chemical and biological warfare. That was the point. The threat was that Hussein may have been hiding other goods from the inspectors. It had nothing to do with Clinton's problems in the United States.

There are additional areas of support of the issue at hand, the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the world. The nations are supporting not just the Americans but the enforcement of UN resolutions. These countries are standing up united against a terrorist.

The Reform Party was clear in its opposition to previous American requests for military support. When President Clinton asked our prime minister for military support in Haiti we opposed that. Why? It was because there was not a clear mandate. The rules of engagement were fuzzy. There was no plan for withdrawal. The troops are gone from there now. The situation is still rather desperate in that country. The leader of the official opposition clearly pointed out to the government side the need for a plan, the need for a definite mandate and definite control over what was happening.

We are not saying when the Americans say jump that everybody should jump. This situation is much different from the situation in Haiti. The threat is much greater. There is a need for a definite set of rules of engagement, a plan. This is one point that we as an opposition party would put to the government to ensure that it could relate that point back to the people of this country.

It is clear that our support for military action would not simply be in response to an American request. We would be joining the Americans, the British, the Germans and other allies in standing up against a terrorist aggressor. We support action when action is required. On this occasion action is required.

It is incumbent upon Canada to stand united against a dictator, against terrorism.

We must demonstrate to Saddam Hussein and all Saddam Husseins of the world that when the international community draws a line in the sand it is not simply being rhetorical. A clear concern, even by many south of the border, is that when we draw a line in the sand we mean it.

I do not think it would be in our best interest in the international community to be laughed at behind closed doors for drawing a line in the sand and running the other way or sitting on the fence. It should be clear that we will act if it is necessary.

Our military has a proud history of fighting for democracy and freedom. I have had the opportunity to travel with vets over to Europe and listen to their experiences, their dedication, their loyalty and their determination. I know that other members across the way have joined in such excursions. It is very moving to listen to veterans of the second world war and other theatres of action. It moves me as a citizen who has never been engaged in a war because they fought for freedom.

Throughout the country's history Canadian forces have demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to defending freedom. Whenever they were called upon our forces rose to the occasion with outstanding bravery and competence. Our forces did an outstanding job in the 1991 gulf war. They have since gained much experience in peacekeeping missions overseas. I think of the Bosnia matter where several thousand of our troops gained experience in that theatre. They served professionally and with much competence. We have much to be proud of through their actions.

Contrary to what our colleagues in the Conservative Party have suggested tonight, I have every confidence that members of our military will rise to the occasion. They know their limitations and they know what they can accomplish. They often have a habit of exceeding our expectations time after time. I believe this mission will be no exception.

In summary, we want to see a peaceful diplomatic resolution to this conflict. However, we have a moral obligation to stand united with our allies if necessary. We must not allow dictators to make a mockery of the international community. Our military is capable and prepared to act. Let us demonstrate to Saddam Hussein that we will not tolerate his terrorism.

United let us show that our support will be military as well as moral and political.

[George Proud, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood.

It is the second time in the House that I have risen to speak in a debate relating to the same individual and whether not Canada should participate militarily in the situation in Iraq. We did this in 1991 and we are doing it again tonight. I have not changed my mind since then. I believed then that we should have gone further and I believe tonight that if all else fails we have to participate.

Since the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989 the Canadian forces have played an increasingly important role in promoting international peace and security around the world. They have participated in an unprecedented number of peace supported operations during this time. It appears we may be entering into one more operation.

As we all know, Iraq has been refusing to let American officials and then later the whole United Nations team conduct weapons inspections. The importance of this refusal cannot be understated.

As a condition of the ceasefire agreement between Iraq and coalition forces in the gulf war the UN special commission, UNSCOM, was formed to supervise in part the destruction of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

In addition to that initial destruction of Iraq's arsenal, the force was to develop a long term plan for monitoring and verifying Iraq's continued compliance with the commitment not to use, develop, construct or acquire prohibited weapons or equipment. These envoys have been taking place right up until the present day, or at least until Mr. Hussein refused their entry.

Iraq must continue to allow weapons inspection teams to conduct their investigations. Saddam Hussein has shown in the past his disrespect for the norms and laws of the global community. Clearly his refusal to permit the required inspections is a test of our resolve to keep peace in that region.

If he can escape reprimand in his refusal he will continue to secretly rebuild his military. This is not the first time he has tried to obstruct inspections. Personally I do not think it will be the last time. That is why we cannot allow this to continue. A man of his ethics cannot be allowed to create weapons of mass destruction. Kuwait is proof of his intentions.

The potential for human devastation is great. A man like Hussein does not create these weapons only for deterrence purposes. He intends to use them.

Our options are simple. We can do nothing. The world can lay back and let Hussein rebuild his military, but we cannot then be surprised when he again attacks another country. It will be our own fault.

Let me say that next time there will be countless casualties and fatalities. The death toll of the innocent will be extreme. His next engagement will make the gulf war look like a walk in the park. I suspect that if he does not use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons during what will be his initial attack, he will undoubtedly use them in retaliation to a counter attack on his forces.

To do nothing is not a viable option. By acting now we can save possibly millions of innocent lives down the road. While there is always the chance of civilian casualties or even fatalities, I am sure there will be fewer now than if no action is taken.

We must remember that we value human life above all else. We are not so sure Saddam Hussein holds that same value. If he is allowed to strike, who knows how many innocent lives could be at stake? I truly believe that acting now is fully justified by his violation of the ceasefire agreement.

Another point that must be stated is that military action is not always the best response. This issue has been simmering for quite some time. In fact, some would say that it has been simmering since the ceasefire was signed on February 27, 1991. Every effort possible has been made to settle this very difficult problem. It is imperative that every diplomatic avenue be exhausted prior to resorting to force.

Unfortunately diplomatic efforts have failed thus far to resolve the issue. While a diplomatic solution is always possible Hussein's refusal must not go unchallenged. That is why military action must not be ruled out. That is why we are here tonight debating Canada's involvement in a potential military action against Iraq.

The next question is whether a U.S. led attack is justified or whether we should wait for the United Nations to sanction an attack. My response is that Iraq is violating the agreement signed under the auspices of the United Nations. That agreement must be upheld. In that sense we already have the authority.

The need for action also presents Canadians with other questions than just if action is necessary. We must also ask ourselves whether our forces are ready and capable of participating in such a mission, and to what extent. The most important question is not just if they are ready and capable but should they be. It is not enough to say our forces can participate in foreign missions. We must be able to say that our forces are combat capable at all times.

This is an important point. There is a significant distinction between a peacekeeping force, which some people believe is a desire of Canadians only, and being combat capable which is what Canada needs.

Traditionally peacekeeping involved sending troops to keep a pace that had already been established. Originally peacekeeping missions did not involve more than land troops and perhaps air supply support. They did not involve all three components of our forces.

Combat capable forces entail a force which has the ability to react quickly to any type of military threat, a force that can integrate all three components of forces to mount a formidable counter attack. That means we need to maintain our air force, our naval force and our land force. This includes necessary equipment to fulfil their assigned tasks.

Even peacekeeping has changed dramatically over the years. In modern day missions each component has become vital to the overall mission. At various points throughout our missions in the former Yugoslavia, we had all three components of our forces engaged. So even peacekeeping requires more of a multipurpose combat capable force.

I would like to highlight the achievements of our forces. Our troops reached out to help and spared no effort in responding to humanitarian crises in Rwanda. While they could not stop the bloodshed, our tiny force was able to save thousands of lives.

They continued to assist the international community in dealing with the tragic conflict in the Balkans. Their military contribution, as I said earlier, has included land, sea and air capabilities, as well as a wide range of humanitarian activities.

They helped stabilize the volatile situation in Haiti and initiated a wide range of humanitarian projects throughout the country. They led a multinational response to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance in central Africa, thereby serving as a catalyst to help break the impasse that kept refugees in camps for two years.

At the same time, Canadian forces personnel have maintained their traditional roles here at home including search and rescue, and during the Saguenay region floods, the flooding of the Red River and most recently in the ice storm in eastern Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

Through all types of challenges like I have mentioned, the Canadian forces have proven themselves ready and capable of responding to the needs of their country and to whatever international peace support operations they are assigned. To me that is a multipurpose combat capable force.

The present situation in Iraq needs to be resolved. If diplomatic efforts fail, we must not only consider military force but ensure that through the use of force Iraq complies with the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

When all else fails, Iraq must be stopped and Canada must be part of it.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to emphasize the appropriateness of consulting parliament today on this very important matter. This is an emergency debate on possible Canadian intervention in Iraq.

Having been a member here since 1993, I believe I see a progression in the government's attitude that bears pointing out. In my opinion, it is indeed very important for parliament to be formally consulted before the government takes a position, when there is no immediate emergency forcing a very rapid decision. In the present situation, and other similar ones, I believe it is important for the government to take time to find out what all parties think of the situation.

Unlike matters of internal policy, often the strength of consensus that can could come out of such debates would further strengthen the Canadian government's position in international policy.

The attitude evident in this consultation of parliament today on this important matter, intervention in Iraq, would have to be repeated in the position adopted by the Government of Canada.

Let us recall that the current situation is the result of the Gulf War. As a result of that war, the UN imposed some quite severe conditions on Iraq, arms destruction, compliance with certain requirements, with a view to ensuring that the war could not resume and that the same situation would not repeat itself.

That position was taken by the UN. It is under the responsibility of the UN Security Council. I feel that care must be taken to respect these authorities. The United Nations Organization is a body that can be a worthwhile tool in crisis situations, provided its power is acknowledged and provided that, each time there is a crisis situation, we do not decide to act in parallel, thus exposing its powerlessness.

Therefore, the government's position will have to take into account respect for the United Nations. In its past diplomatic efforts—going as far back as the Suez crisis—our country has, more often than not, respected the UN's moral authority as much as possible. Sometimes it did not do so, even though it should have, and we should reflect on this.

One wonders why we are again facing such a problem following the gulf war, in which thousands of people died. When human lives are sacrificed in a war, regardless of the motives of either side, the losers are those who died and their families.

In a debate like this one, we must be careful not to behave with triumphalism, or think we have all the solutions. We should be modest and try to make sure the actions we are going to take are appropriate. We should take our time and be careful not to do things because we are angry or in a show of force, since the consequences could be very negative.

Therefore, every diplomatic effort must be made regarding the situation in Iraq. Several members of the international community hope that every diplomatic effort will be made. They hope an innovative approach can be found, that we can call on countries that may have better relations with Iraq. It is important to exhaust all diplomatic channels before resorting to a military intervention. However, should diplomatic efforts fail, it would important to come back here to make sure our position would be based on all the available information.

I do not think that anyone in the House disputes the fact that Iraq must comply with the UN resolutions, must meet the conditions laid down, because international peace demands that there still be respect for the mandate the UN has been given and is responsible for carrying out. It is there to speak for the world community and I therefore think we must ensure that the decision taken in respect of Iraq is complied with. No one disputes this.

We may, however, want to ensure that there are no sanctions, such as military strikes, which will obviously have very painful consequences, including for the civilian population. It is very rare that wars can be conducted without civilian casualties. I think this aspect deserves considerable attention.

How can we be sure that agreements will ultimately be respected and that there will be an end to the present opposition between a country such as Iraq, which is a middle power, and a giant like the United States, so that we do not find ourselves facing a crisis such as this every four or five years? There are lessons to be learned from the past. Why was the Gulf War not conclusive, and what is the reason for Iraq's present attitude? I think it is important to try to understand this perception, the deep motivations of a country such as Iraq, so that the solutions to the crisis truly address the root problems.

There are therefore objective players that must have a role in this diplomatic offensive—I am thinking in particular of all the Arab nations, of Russia, and of all countries with possible special links with Iraq, which have had more direct contacts—in order to persuade Iraq to comply with the UN conditions.

The Bloc Quebecois indicated it would be appropriate for the position that the government will probably take tomorrow or in the coming days to be reassessed later on, should diplomatic efforts not be as successful as anticipated. I do not see any point in painting ourselves into a corner right away and making a final decision that would automatically lead to military strikes.

Even if no Canadian troops were involved in direct combat, Canada would still have to accept the consequences of supporting the strikes. This support could have a positive effect in helping to resume negotiations. On the other hand, it could lead to the strikes themselves, the results of which remain to be seen in terms of military effectiveness and impact on civilian populations.

All these factors must be considered in assessing the current situation. I feel it is important to make one thing clear. The United States apparently claims to have the right to act without having to go back before the security council. A closer look at the conditions imposed on Iraq by the UN Security Council shows that the current situation implying an automatic right to military retaliation is not included.

Before making its position final, I think that Canada should take this into account and, before supporting any military strikes, make sure that they have been approved by the UN Security Council and that the council has confirmed that all the conditions have been met.

Mr Speaker, I see that you are telling me that my time is up. I will therefore conclude by saying that, before taking a definitive stand on this—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pardon me, you had 20 minutes.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, that is what I originally thought. This will allow me enough time to further develop my argument on this situation.

In the present situation, looking at the positions adopted by the international community, on the one hand we have the United Kingdom, for example, which is clearly alongside the Americans in this crisis. It is the most staunch of Washington's allies.

On the other hand, France is not keen to participate in a military operation against Iraq. It continues to exercise diplomatic pressure for Iraq to give in and allow unconditional access to all of its sites.

There may be an approach that could be used. Might we not have a sort of task force made up of countries with attitudes similar to France's, which could intervene, serve as a mediator in this situation, so as to come up with a solution other than a military strike?

As for Russia, they say President Yeltsin is strongly opposed to military action against Iraq and is making statements which may seem a bit hotheaded concerning the possibility of a third world war. That does, however, give us some idea of the impact of a too hasty authorization for an American attack.

Then there is China, which is opposed to any military action against Iraq. The majority of the Arab countries are opposed to military action. These are forces that may play a significant role in the present situation.

I think there is still time. There are a few weeks left for a diplomatic offensive, with a difference. In the future, there should be a call for a joint effort by those who want to avoid a military offensive and for an in-depth look at the issue.

At the start of my presentation, I was saying that it was interesting the government should consult Parliament before taking a definite position. If in fact the government has the wisdom to find a consensus from the debate here, which is not immediately obvious, let us look at it in detail.

For example, the New Democratic Party opposed any military intervention.

Would the New Democratic Party not be prepared to say “Let us undertake a diplomatic offensive and we will have another debate afterwards”? If there are no results, it could then reconsider its position in the light of the efforts made and the results achieved.

The Reform Party quickly indicated its readiness to support the American position. I suggest it join with the consensus for an all-out diplomatic approach and then, if it fails to achieve the desired results, we can reach a consensus on the need for a strike. The Conservatives' attitude is similar.

I understand that the position of the Liberals presented at the moment is not necessarily that of the Liberal Party or of the government as set out in the Prime Minister's speech in this debate. I think the conditions are there for an acceptable outcome, one that truly reflects the will of Canadian parliamentarians and thus of Canadians.

So all the positions set forth here could be elements of a consensus, which would look a bit like the Bloc's position. In other words, strikes if necessary, but on the basis of decisions by the UN Security Council once it has decided that all diplomatic avenues had been pursued without success. Above all, there must be another debate before any decision is taken to have Canada provide military support against Iraq, because we would then know whether or not the strike was supported by the UN Security Council. We would know whether or not all nations felt that diplomatic efforts had failed.

Perhaps three weeks after these efforts, a solution will be reached. Perhaps not, and the countries who now oppose a military strike will reach the conclusion that one is necessary because no other course of action remains. Once again, this could give peace one last chance.

I will conclude, and it will only take a few minutes. I think this issue must be approached with great modesty, with great respect for human life, with faith in the diplomatic tools available to us, and with our eyes wide open of course. We are in a situation where there is a history, a particular reality, as well as a need to find compromises. If the real objective is to allow inspection of all sites, would there not be a possible compromise whereby these inspections could be carried out by representatives of nations acceptable to both parties? Does this not hold out some possibility?

Having seen some of the aftermath of the Gulf war, where the Americans won a military battle, I think that the first priority in defining Canada's position should be the human beings affected by that war. In deciding on a course of action, we must ask ourselves how we can ensure that the people of Iraq, the inhabitants of that country, have the maximum chances of building a decent life in the future, and leaving behind this constant threat of military intervention.

I am not judging the Americans and Iraqis. I am, however, pointing out that there are civilians in the middle of this battlefield who are not necessarily responsible for the actions of the Iraqi government. I think this has to be the key criterion in the position adopted by the Canadian government.

I hope all parties will agree to the consensus proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, which I will summarize as follows: strikes, if necessary, after the decision has been made by the UN Security Council and after it has been established that all diplomatic efforts have failed. Then we should have the opportunity, in a second debate in the House, when all the efforts made have been analyzed, to determine whether such strikes are necessary.

I urge this House and the government to take such a responsible attitude so that Canada can emerge from this situation with an even better international reputation. I particularly want the people who could be affected by a military strike or by a peaceful diplomatic solution to this problem to be able to say that parliamentarians who had to debate this issue in the various parliaments around the world took a responsible attitude. That is what I want to see happen in this Parliament.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today and take part in this debate.

Today we are being asked to consider actions needed to stop a man out of control, a dangerous man who scoffs at the world community, a man who holds peace and stability in contempt. The world must act.

We are morally bound to support a reasonable response to Saddam Hussein's deplorable and selfish acts. If we do not, our children and our grandchildren will remember our lack of resolve with sadness.

Canada has always stood for freedom and decency, peace and security. Canadians have recognized for a long time that the defence of Canada does not stop at our borders. Nor does our interest stop there. As a nation dependent on trade for our prosperity, as a multicultural country connected to the peoples of the world, and as a people who believe that we are committed to working for a peaceful, stable and prosperous world, Canadians are inextricably internationalists.

Today we are proving that again. We must show our support for international efforts to ensure the Government of Iraq complies with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. We must be willing to use the Canadian forces to show Saddam Hussein that his actions are totally unacceptable.

The men and women of the Canadian forces have played a long and distinguished role in a variety of missions in the Middle East. They have contributed to international peace and security on many occasions and they must do so again.

I want to emphasize two important points. First, each and every mission we have carried out in the Middle East has been carried out under the auspices of the United Nations. We have never deployed our forces to represent the specific interest of any nation.

Mr. Speaker, I must break at this time to say I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Erie—Lincoln.

In other words, we have only sent our forces to the Middle East in support of our traditional worldwide contribution to international peace and security. This time if needed we must support the international efforts to ensure the Government of Iraq complies with the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The second point I would like to emphasize is that when we have operated in the Middle East we have made a difference. We have gained the respect of our allies and other members of the United Nations. In a wide variety of missions that we have carried out in that part of the world, we have helped serve the cause of peace and the sanctity of international law.

The members of the Canadian forces have proved time and time again that they are more than capable of operating alongside the best armed forces in the world. Nowhere was this more evident than in the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Canada's navy demonstrated its ability to respond quickly and effectively. With no warning, our naval and air personnel working around the clock prepared the ships and helicopters for sea and sent them on their way in record time. It was an example of what the commander of the Canadian task force called “plain old Canadian pioneering spirit”.

Once hostilities broke out, Canadian ships were responsible for protecting the coalition logistics forces in the gulf. I must emphasize that the Canadian task force commander was the only non-American officer to be assigned a significant wartime command.

That Canada assumed tactical control of the coalition logistics force made up of vessels of some 11 countries was evidence of the respect that Canadian sailors and ships earned from coalition partners during operations in the Persian Gulf.

Canada also sent 26 F-18 fighters to the gulf. Known as the Desert Cats, they flew a wide variety of missions that further demonstrated the skill and flexibility of the Canadian forces. Still later we deployed a complete field hospital to the region to treat coalition casualties as well as Iraqi prisoners of war.

The Canadian gulf war deployment was a logistical triumph. In a short period we assembled a versatile force and deployed it halfway around the world. In all more than 4,500 Canadians contributed to the success of the coalition's mission. The members of the forces made a difference.

The Canadian forces' performance in the gulf war was simply outstanding. Their contribution extended well beyond their numbers and equipment, a tribute to their training, their versatility and their ingenuity. They received nothing but praise from our coalition partners.

Our men and women served with professionalism, dedication and courage in support of the United Nations and in defence of the values and interests of Canada.

But the Canadian forces did not just show their mettle in the Persian Gulf. Canada has a long and distinguished history of peacekeeping service in the Middle East.

In the 1950s very early on in our peacekeeping efforts, Canada joined in a large multinational UN effort to bring peace to the Middle East. For over four decades now, Canada has maintained a vital presence in United Nations peacekeeping operations in the Middle East. Some were short missions lasting only a few months and others are still ongoing.

Among other missions, Canada participated in both the first and second United Nations emergency forces. We contributed to the United Nations observation group in Lebanon. We assisted with the United Nations Yemen observation mission and the United Nations interim force in Lebanon. We were also participants in the United Nations Iran-Iraq military observer group.

Canada has been a longstanding participant in the United Nations truce supervision organization, or UNTSO, since 1954. The task of Canadian forces personnel assigned to this mission is to monitor, supervise and observe ceasefire agreements and to provide military observers on the Golan Heights, in south Lebanon and in the Sinai.

Since 1974 we participated in the United Nations disengagement observer force, or UNDOF. We still have Canadian forces personnel serving on the Golan Heights between Israel and Syria. They provide second line logistic support to UNDOF. Canada also provides communications detachments to all UNDOF units.

Since 1991 Canada has also participated in the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait observer mission whose mandate is to monitor the Iraq-Kuwait border. Canada assists with this task by serving as UN military observers.

Canada also participates in the multinational interception force which monitors and enforces various United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the import and export of Iraqi commodities, including oil.

Since 1991 four of our warships have spent three to five months deployed to the Arabian Gulf area. Our most recent contribution was HMCS Regina which patrolled the Arabian Gulf from April 3 to July 9, 1997.

The Canadian forces were still contributing to the United Nations special commission until Saddam Hussein stopped us. UNSCOM is charged with the inspection and destruction of Iraq's ballistic missiles as well as its chemical, nuclear and biological facilities.

We believe that UNSCOM work must not be stopped. It must go on. It needs to go on to ensure that there is a clear message to Saddam Hussein, indeed to the world that defiance of this kind of the UN will not be tolerated. It is this blatant disregard for the ideals that we stand for as well as the very real threat posed by weapons of mass destruction that we abhor. We must take action to resume these inspections and ensure unfettered access.

We must demonstrate our resolve and make it clear to Saddam Hussein that we will never ever give into his malicious threats and acts of defiance. We must show him that intransigence is unacceptable and he must be made to understand that the only option is the right option. It is for the Government of Iraq to comply fully with the United Nations security council resolutions.

As our fine record has shown, Canada has never stood silent on the issues that matter. What matters now is that the world is being held hostage to the most destructive force of defiance. In the face of such defiance, we must not back down. Canada has played an important role in the ongoing multilateral efforts to bring peace to the Middle East. We must continue this tradition by supporting the present and future endeavours to stop those who would continue to threaten and destabilize the region and indeed the world.