Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by defining the issue before the House as the official opposition sees it. The issue is whether Canada should accept or reject the invitation by the United States to participate in possible military actions in the Middle East, actions to stop terrorism and the production of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.
The issue is not whether we support a maximum diplomatic effort to constrain Saddam Hussein. Every member of the House supports a maximum diplomatic effort. The issue is what to do if diplomatic efforts fail, whether then to participate in a military action.
I am sure we will find by the end of this evening the issue can be looked at from the political perspective. It can be looked at from the economic and military perspectives. But in all these considerations the official opposition wants to ensure that it is the human and moral dimensions that we keep uppermost in our minds.
If Saddam Hussein persists in the production of chemical and biological weapons and eventually uses them, the cost in terms of human life and suffering is incalculable.
The hon. member from Red Deer and others will dwell on this point a little later but let me mention just one chilling statistic. At the point when Saddam Hussein resumed his refusal to co-operate with the UN special commission, its inspectors were searching for 25 warheads armed with 40 gallons of toxins such as anthrax and botulinum, each of which can kill up to a million people.
If we have any doubts of Saddam Hussein's preparedness to use such weapons, as the prime minister has already said, we should remember that he used chemical and biological weapons against the Iranian forces in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. He used poison gas against his own people, the Kurds in the north, immediately after losing the gulf war.
There is no doubt about it in our mind. Leaving Saddam Hussein unchecked would exact an enormous toll in human suffering. At the same time, of course, military action to constrain Saddam Hussein will also exact a human toll.
It was observed in the House by then Prime Minister Mulroney during the 1991 debate that Saddam Hussein had demonstrated limitless tolerance for the suffering of his own people. He can be counted upon to use women and children as human shields to protect possible targets.
If military action is undertaken, the lives of military personnel themselves will be jeopardized. Canadian lives could be lost if it is the decision of parliament that Canada should participate militarily.
The human and moral side of the issue must be kept uppermost in our minds. I am personally convinced that the only moral justification for taking human life is if it can be demonstrated that the taking or sacrificing of some lives may save more lives than otherwise. I think that is the only moral justification for capital punishment. I think it is the only moral justification for taking lives through military action. That is really the moral issue with which we are dealing tonight.
Does the risk of loss of lives of innocent Iraqi civilians and the men and women of the armed forces of Canada and our allies outweigh the loss of lives on the part of innocent civilians and military people down the road if we do nothing?
I would be remiss if I did not frankly address the unsatisfactory form of the debate on the motion before us. For the debate to be meaningful and to provide real guidance to the people of Canada and the government, this is what should have happened.
First, we should have had a full briefing of all members of the House by the prime minister, by the foreign affairs minister and by the defence minister with an open question period to follow to get all the facts out on the table before conducting any debate.
This is simply common sense. You get all the facts out through cross-examination before you debate them. Why the rules and procedures of the House continue to defy simple common sense concepts like that is frankly beyond me.
Then you commence the debate. Not debate on a vague motion like the one before us, but a debate on a real position opposed by the government but subject to amendment by members of House and subject to a vote at the end of the day.
The prime minister excuses this lack of leadership by saying that he wants to consult first before putting forward a position. The more statesmanlike thing would be to put forward a position which represents the very best judgment of the government and then be willing to amend it or to change it on the basis of consultation and points made by members of the House.
In the absence of strong leadership from the government it falls upon members on this side of the House to fill the vacuum. We are calling upon members of all opposition parties to make a contribution, and I mean that sincerely.
Given the historic concern of the social democrats in the House about the human and social consequences of military action, we expect members of that persuasion to make a major contribution from that perspective.
Given the fact that the Progressive Conservatives were in power at the time of the last gulf conflict, we expect Conservative members to make a significant contribution by drawing upon that experience, what went right and what went wrong, and applying it to this situation.
As far as the official opposition is concerned, our principal contribution will be this. We have insisted in committee and in debate in the House since 1993 that parliament should be developing clear criteria to assist it in deciding how Canada should respond to requests for our participation in multilateral military operations to establish and maintain peace in the world. We raised this demand in relation to our participation in Bosnia and we raise it again tonight.
In our judgment there are at least six criteria which should be satisfied before Canada commits itself to responding to requests for participation in multilateral military initiatives to prevent and remove threats to peace.
First, parliament should be satisfied that there is a serious international threat and that diplomatic efforts to resolve it have failed.
In the case before us there is no question in our mind that Saddam Hussein and his weapons production capability constitute a serious international threat and that to date diplomatic efforts are not solving the problem, so this criterion is satisfied.
Second, parliament should be satisfied that so far as possible there is multinational support for military action.
In this case there is multinational support from our key allies, in particular the United States and the United Kingdom, so this criterion is satisfied.
Third, the government should be satisfied that there is a workable plan and strategy for military action to resolve the issue. We expect the government to assure parliament that there is such a plan and strategy. The government has not yet provided evidence along that line. We trust that it will do so before this evening is over. This criterion remains to be satisfied.
Fourth, parliament must be satisfied that any plan for military action includes a well defined mission and a clear definition of Canada's role. We expect the government to provide something on this mission definition tonight. It has not yet done so. Perhaps it will do so before the end of the evening. This criterion remains to be satisfied.
Fifth, parliament must be satisfied that the role expected of Canada is within our fiscal and military capabilities. We expect the government to give evidence along that line tonight. So far this criterion remains to be satisfied.
Sixth, parliament must be assured that there is a command and control structure satisfactory to Canada. Again we expect the government to provide some information on this structure. It has not yet done so. This criterion also remains to be satisfied.
Given that the seriousness of the threat is established and the need for action is clear, this is the advice of the official opposition to the government on this matter. There are five points.
(1) Canada has an obligation to support its allies in stopping terrorism by Saddam Hussein.
(2) Our support should be military as well as moral and political.
(3) The focus of any military action should be on putting Saddam Hussein's weapons factories out of business and allowing UN inspectors to do their work.
(4) As parliamentarians we should make the political decision to support. We should then let the defence department make the recommendations concerning the form and scope of our military support.
(5) It is important at the outset of these types of things to be clear on why one is doing what one is doing. The reason for supporting military action is that it is our moral obligation and in our national interest in stopping terrorism and the production of weapons of mass destruction.
In closing, I return to the point that for this debate to be meaningful it should end with a vote on a motion proposing the course of action. In that the government has failed to present such a motion, I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to revert to Government Orders and to continue to sit beyond the daily time of adjournment to consider an amendable and votable motion to read as follows:
That this House support diplomatic and if necessary military action by our allies to stop terrorism and the production of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.