Debates of Oct. 1st, 2002

Iraq

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question for my colleague on this side of the House is this: Could he compare what happened to Kosovo with the NATO-led coalition to what happened in Afghanistan under the United Nations umbrella? Could he, in his own words, shed some light on how one was right and the other was wrong or on how both were right? If he could share those views I would greatly appreciate it.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I much would have preferred to have Kosovo under the UN. It could not be and we went with NATO, but it fell in the particular sphere of the alliance.

All I can say is that in both cases if we look at what happened when we went to the United Nations, we had much broader support. I think that is the kind of support we are looking for in trying to deal with a very sensitive region of the world, in trying to deal with the situation in Iraq. I think we have to work and do our best to have the legitimacy of the United Nations, because it is not just a battle against Iraq. The battle against terrorism still goes on and the more people we have in the coalition the more we are--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I apologize to the hon. member, but five minutes runs out very quickly.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the conflict between our closest allies and Saddam Hussein intensifies, Canada must take a position that is grounded in our national interests, in the interests of our allies and in the interests of peace and security everywhere, a peace which Saddam Hussein threatens daily.

The Canadian Alliance leader, the leader of Canada's official opposition, has presented a thoughtful, careful and meaningful basis for the necessary strategic and moral position relating to Iraq. It answers two important questions. First, what is Canada's own strategic interest in the conflict and its outcome? Second, what does our moral compass tell us? The answer to both these questions is clear.

Canada's only strategically wise and morally tenable position and course is to stand with our allies against Saddam Hussein, a ruthless dictator and an outspoken enemy of all we hold dear. He is a serial aggressor, a deceiver with a heart of hatred and he must not be allowed to unleash that hatred as he has in the past. Specifically this means Canada must do two things.

First and most immediately Canada must lobby the Security Council delegations to pass a resolution with definitive consequences for any Iraqi non-compliance with weapons inspections.

Iraq promised again today to grant UN weapons inspectors unfettered access. That is no reason to be complaisant. It was just two weeks ago that Saddam's forces were caught on tape firing missiles at British and U.S. pilots who were conducting flyovers that were mandated by the Security Council. Saddam has a proven record of deceit. If the Security Council's resolution is toothless the world may pay a terrible price.

Second, Canada must keep its options open. While the United Nations is the preferred route, Canada's decision to act should be predicated on our own national interest and moral sensibilities and not solely on the permission of an international body. The United Nations tragic failure to respond to clear warnings of the horrendous 1994 Rwandan genocide is a grim reminder that that international body is not infallible.

If Iraq fails to comply with weapons inspections or is shown to be threatening in other ways, Canada must join the growing multilateral coalition to make it clear that there will be consequences. Israel, Qatar, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia have all committed to play a role and Canada must not be left behind. In the event of a conflict between Saddam Hussein and our closest friends, it would be strategically unwise and morally untenable for Canada to remain neutral.

Our opinion is based on the strategic interests of Canada, also on the interests of our allies and on the interests of peace and public safety.

The United States and Great Britain are our allies. We share an historic border with the United States and an historic Commonwealth with Great Britain.

That means we have to carry our weight with our allies in confronting international threats and a menace to peace like Saddam Hussein. It is in Canada's security interest to support our allies. A threat to our democratic allies around the world is indeed a threat to Canada.

Just consider Iraq's desire and its capacity to threaten Canada and our friends. We need to look no further than Canada's own intelligence reports. On February 25, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service reported that the threat was clear and imminent. I quote:

In February 1999, the [International Atomic Energy Agency] had charged Iraq with denying...evidence that Iraq had terminated its nuclear weapon program. It had added that it was prudent to assume that Iraq “has retained documents of its clandestine nuclear program, specimens of important components and possibly amounts of nonenriched uranium,” and “retains the capability to explore, for nuclear weapons purposes, any relevant material or technology to which it may gain access in the future”.

Weapons inspectors have not visited Iraq since this grave warning was issued. It gets worse. I quote again from another CSIS document:

Independent experts, including former Iraqi nuclear scientist Khidir Hamza (who defected in 1994), have asserted that “Since the war, Iraq is suspected of having made progress on a number of bottlenecks in its weapon program,” including “design work, laboratory efforts, subcomponent production...

Even if weapons inspectors are granted access, the report indicates that Saddam may still be able to hide his toys of terror. The CSIS report quotes independent experts related to biological terror, and we need to be mindful of these. I quote:

The Iraqi government in August 1995 admitted to having produced 19,000 litres of botulinum toxin (BTX), 8,500 litres of anthrax, and 2,400 litres of the cancer-producing agent aflatoxin; to have loaded BTX and anthrax on Scud missile warheads and aerial bombs; and to have conducted research on mycotoxins and infectious viruses.

These reports are corroborated by similar analyses done by the German intelligence service along with the recent exhaustive report from Great Britain on this area, a report which our Minister of National Defence admitted to not having read.

The danger is undeniable. We are aware of Saddam's aggressive designs for his neighbours, particularly our democratic ally, Israel, and we know of his hatred for our neighbours. Indeed we know it is not beyond him to share his weapon stockpiles with terrorists who would gladly attack our neighbours or us. Our own intelligence proves all of this. The threat he poses to our closest economic, political and military allies, and possibly to ourselves, makes Saddam a strategic enemy of ours.

Some argue that even though Saddam poses a major security threat, international norms prohibit pre-emptive action against him. That is something we have heard tonight. This thinking is not based upon historic reality and in fact is reckless. Imagine if Israel had not taken the courageous step to pre-emptively strike Iraq's nuclear program in the early 1980s. Where would the world be today if Israel had wavered and Saddam had triumphed in developing and using those nuclear weapons? Where would the world be if the multilateral coalition of 1998 had not intervened to strike Saddam's key weapons facilities?

The Prime Minister of Canada at that time rightly agreed to support our allies in that pre-emptive strike without an additional Security Council mandate. The only thing that has changed between 1998 and now is that Saddam Hussein has had more years without inspection to cultivate his weapons program.

Again, Saddam Hussein is a serial aggressor with a heart of hatred even against his own people. That was exposed when he gassed to death 5,000 of his own citizens. He is against millions of his own citizens who live in odious poverty while he, a $6 billion dictator, rates as one of the richest men on earth.

The noted historian, A.J. Taylor, in his intellectually formidable and universally acclaimed The Origins of the Second World War , makes a sobering observation. He says, and I quote, “Hitler, an alert opportunist... Would not have rearmed if he had believed that the allies would have forcibly prevented him...”

The words of Edmund Burke are appropriate at this time, “All that has to happen for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”. We do not want war, but we also do not want the unthinkable tragedy of Saddam Hussein realizing his evil dreams and unleashing a nightmare upon us or our allies.

Our government must urge Security Council members to pass and enforce a resolution with teeth. If the United Nations fails and Saddam persists, Canada must join the growing allied coalition to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that non-compliance is a direct threat to peace and security and it will have consequences. It is our political and strategic interest to do this. It is also our moral imperative.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, would the hon. member clarify for me how he sees the function of the United Nations? The United Nations has passed thousands of resolutions against this regime or that regime, yet they are not being enforced or even acted upon.

I want to make clear in my mind. Which regimes do we move against? Which regimes do we not move against? How do we pick or choose and if we cannot pick or choose, do we go with another coalition as we did in Kosovo?

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are making a clear case for a particular circumstance. We know that Saddam Hussein has violated some 14 UN resolutions. I do not know about the thousands of other UN resolutions that my hon. friend is referring to that have been violated. If he wants to make a case for those, then maybe he should bring them forward. We are talking specifically about Saddam Hussein.

He referenced other nations. We are not talking about other nations. I want to reiterate again that we are not talking against the Iraqi people, people who would benefit from the values of democracy and freedom of trade. We are talking about Saddam Hussein and a stated intent. This is what separates him from a leader of other nations that have the capability to launch weapons of mass destruction.

These other leaders, to whomever he is referring, are not publicly stating their intent and their desire to destroy other nations. That makes him a very unique case and that is why we are making our position based on this case and based on Saddam Hussein. If he has other leaders and other perpetrators violating UN resolutions that he thinks are important and need to be brought to the House, then he should do that.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether he agrees with the Minister of National Defence when he characterized the United States in taking multilateral action outside the bounds of the United Nations as taking advantage of the laws of the jungle?

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague I will admit I was somewhat alarmed at his reference to the concern of the United States for their own security and its desire to take action, if necessary. That has even been recognized by the Minister of Foreign Affairs here today. He characterized that as some kind of law of the jungle. I do hope that he reviews his comments so that in the future he will not make statements that are as provocative as that.

In answer to her question, I do not agree with that characterization.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to add some clarity in the debate where we are talking about weapons of mass destruction and an attack on Iraq under any circumstance, UN sanctioned or unilateral or pre-emptive or whatever. I think we must bear in mind that when we talk about chemical weapons and particularly biological weapons, the reaction will not be confined to Iraq and it may not be necessarily confined to the Middle East. What we are debating here tonight is an action that could result in civilian lives lost in this country. I wanted to make that point to the member.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the member's precise point is because the very thing about which we are concerned is that a biological attack against the United States, a nuclear attack against the United States, clearly is going to have repercussions on Canada. I do not think there is any debate about that. If Saddam Hussein launches nuclear capability, which he has against Israel, it is clearly going to have devastating effects on surrounding countries. We apparently share the same concern.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the president of the country which is our closest neighbour, our largest trading partner and whose people have been our best friends in the world is trying to convince us to join him in an attack and invasion of Iraq. The president claims that Iraq is a rogue state, part of an axis of evil that threatens the world; that it harbours terrorists and may be linked to September 11; that it builds and amasses weapons of mass destruction and uses them against its own people; and reminds us that Iraq tried to expand its territory when it invaded Kuwait.

To deal with the president of Iraq and this list of crimes, the U.S. president is aggressively selling the idea of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. I am here tonight to speak in opposition to this idea and to undermine the reasons which underpin the idea.

First, I oppose the idea of one person or one state dividing the world into good countries and evil countries. I ask you Madam Speaker, is George Bush known as such a world expert on history, geography, moral theology or any other academic discipline for that matter, that would suggest he has the right to identify--

[An hon. member]

What about Jean Chrétien?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I apologize to the hon. member but we will show the same respect for the hon. member as we showed for the other members in the House of Commons.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think not. I do not think he is that kind of an expert so why should his own citizens, not to mention Canadians and the rest of the world, accept his simple black and white view of today's world?

For those of us who are regularly exposed to American culture, his opinions seem to be more reflective of an American movie plot than the real complex world in which we live. I agree that there are certainly many rogues in this world but it is deceptively simple to paint one as a demon worth destabilizing the whole world.

In the same vein I question the idea of an axis of evil, three states that are evil and threaten our peace. From the perspective of a western democrat, there are many nations whose values and practices conflict with our ideals. Are we to go to war with them all? How ridiculous. President Bush has tried to link Iraq with September 11 and al-Qaeda but has failed to produce any evidence of such a link. This is sowing the seeds of a dangerous confusion about the relationship between al-Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Attacking Iraq would not be a continuation of the war against terror, but a deviation from it. Why? Because Iraq and al-Qaeda are natural enemies. A central tenet of al-Qaeda's jihadist ideology is that secular Muslim rulers like Saddam and their regimes have oppressed the true believers and plunged Islam into a historic crisis. To contemporary jihadists, Saddam Hussein is another in a line of dangerous secularists, an enemy of their faith. Saddam Hussein himself has long recognized that al-Qaeda represents a threat to his regime.

In 1998 the National Security Council concluded and found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Now does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? There is no evidence of this.

Scott Ritter, former senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq and ex-marine, who testified in front of one of our standing committees, has stated repeatedly that as of December 1998 Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed and possessed no meaningful weapons of mass destruction. In 1998 the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Iraq no longer had a viable nuclear weapons program.

In my view our minister and the international community are on the right track by reinstating the weapons inspection process and Iraq has agreed. We have a plan; let us follow it.

It is true that Saddam Hussein killed his own people in 1988. Did members know that in that same year the U.S. government provided him with $500 million in subsidies to buy American products? The next year after his campaign against the Kurds, the American government doubled its subsidy to $1 billion. Is it not a little late to pass moral judgments 14 years and $1.5 billion later?

It is also hypocritical when the western world did not prevent a subsequent genocide that killed 800,000 people in Rwanda in 1994. It is also true that Iraq invaded Kuwait. The world rightly condemned that aggression and drove the Iraqi army back within its own borders. Since then Iraq has stayed there.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I apologize again to the hon. member but the Chair is finding it very difficult to hear the hon. member's remarks.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

How can one condemn and punish aggressive behaviour on the one hand and then in later years advance it for one's own purposes? It is illogical.

In summary, all the arguments so far put forward to attack Iraq seem to be without solid foundation and to be rather illogical, not to mention dangerous to international stability.

I would also say that such a sortie is insulting to Canadian and American veterans of World War II. At that time the principle underpinning Canadian participation was that the world would not allow one nation to attack, invade and take over another nation. Our victory at that time established that principle, which then became a tenet of the United Nations.

A second principle emerged from the Pacific in World War II. When Japan launched a bombing raid designed to cripple the American navy in the Pacific, Japan was using a pre-emptive strike. Pearl Harbor has gone down in history as a day of infamy and in the end resulted in the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From that day forward pre-emptive strikes by nation states were seen as unacceptable and most likely to turn out to be counterproductive.

Today George Bush is trying to justify the concept and the use of the pre-emptive strike. A pre-emptive attack against Iraq is not self-defence. It is an act that is against international law, including the United Nations charter.

Now that the U.S. is the world's only superpower, if the Bush administration negates or ignores international laws and agreements, the United States then contributes to the undermining of the foundations of global stability. By suggesting an invasion of another country and by pushing the idea of a pre-emptive strike, George Bush is insulting the memory of World War II soldiers who lost their lives to establish these principles.

Today the drums of war are throbbing again. America, which has not yet caught last year's villain, is arranging a comeback for the villain of 1990. Is this because of the United States' faltering economy? Is it to distract from the scandals of corporate corruption and falling stock markets? Is it to ignite fires of patriotism and support the President just before a November election so he can gain a majority of seats in the Senate? Is it about a secure supply of oil or more business for the arms manufacturers?

If he does go ahead and strikes Iraq, will he have to rewrite history so that the other pre-emptive strike, Pearl Harbor, is no longer described as an atrocity? And will he be able to cope with the unintended results which the last time included the detonation of nuclear weapons?

Violence still begets more violence. Canadians stand for peace, pluralism and multilateralism. We can choose to destroy in violence or to build in peace.

I ask my colleagues and indeed all Canadians to apply critical thinking to the exhortations of the American President. I do want to be best friends with our American brothers and sisters, but I do not want to be part of this march of folly that is being proposed by the Bush administration today.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I note for the record the generous applause from her colleagues in the government for that bizarre, paranoid, anti-American rant. If the member would apply the same principles in terms of the second world war, we would still be waiting for a League of Nations resolution to endorse military action against the Nazi regime. This is bizarre.

The hon. member said that an attack against Iraq would be against international law. Is she not aware that her own government and her own Prime Minister in this House in 1998 supported American and British air attacks on Iraq without specific authorization from a United Nations resolution? What is the difference between the action taken at that time with the vigorous support of her party, government and Prime Minister, and the action being contemplated in the absence of a specific United Nations resolution authorizing the use of force to enforce some 14 outstanding United Nations resolutions vis-à-vis Iraq?

Could she please explain to us why she did not raise her voice of objection, so far as I know, publicly at least, to her government's support for the use of force in that instance, but she is quite vigorously opposed to it in this instance?

Does she really believe that the President of the United States, the vast majority of the Congress of the United States, and the Parliament of the United Kingdom are insulting the memories of those who died in the second world war as allies by seeking to enforce United Nations resolutions to prevent a dictator from obtaining weapons of mass destruction?

Finally, is she aware and does she not take Mr. Hussein at his own word when he says that he hopes to be able to eliminate half of Israel should he obtain a nuclear weapon?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, an earlier speaker on the opposition side suggested that some of our members are rather youthful, but the misunderstanding of World War II is very clear in the previous speaker's remarks.

When we moved in World War II as Allies, we were moving against the idea of one nation aggressively invading and taking over another. This is exactly what George Bush is now proposing. So the veterans of World War II fought to say, “You can't do that, single nation”, being a different nation at that time.

I am saying that we should respect their memory by reiterating that no single nation, no matter how powerful, no matter how much the world's only superpower, should be allowed to do that when the world has established certain peaceful relations based upon that principle. Nobody should be allowed to break it with impunity. That is what I am saying.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not answer the question of my hon. colleague from Calgary Southeast about the principle of 1998 which that member did not stand up and speak against.

I understand her point very well about not making lists of good and evil nations, but there are some questions and there are some people that can clearly be categorized as being evil. I am going to ask the hon. member straight up, does she believe, yes or no, that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are evil?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I said in my speech that there are many rogues and many evil people in this world. I do not give over to George Bush the right to designate one or two of them and decide that they are the ones that the great strength of western powers should go after at any given moment.

Certainly Osama bin Laden offended us terribly. He has done some very destructive things. I also would contend that it is perhaps a lack of ability to catch him which George Bush could then hold up as a big success for his war against Afghanistan. Even though it was supposed to be a war against terrorism, it turned out to be bombing Afghanistan and its innocent civilians. He was really after terrorists who were born in Saudi Arabia, but he would not think of bombing Saudi Arabia because that might destroy his supply of cheap oil.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak this evening. There have been a number of developments today in the matter we are discussing this evening.

Even if I support the necessity, often if not always, of intervening within the framework of UN resolutions, I am asked, “Do you think that Saddam Hussein is a nice guy?” I will tell anyone at any time that I do not think he is a nice guy, nor is he a respecter of rights. He is not a leader I admire much. People who have grown up in a very open society, people with minds as open as ours, find dictatorships hard to stomach.

I am also asked, “If you had the military and political clout to topple this man from his position, would you do so?” My answer to that is always no. I would want to consult people. I cannot assume the right on my own to say that, just because this man does not conform to my value system, I am going to wipe him off the face of the earth. This is not how things should be done.

When a criminal is captured, is he immediately dragged off to a scaffold to be hanged? This is a lawful society. People are entitled to a fair trial. It is sometimes difficult to do that, of course. In the case of Saddam Hussein, it is. Justice and a fair trial for Saddam Hussein will come from the international community. It has become the jury, an international jury that will have the responsibility for deciding what is to be done with Saddam Hussein. According to this international court and to international law, it is up to the UN to make these decisions.

We might be tempted at first to say that, if he were got rid of, that would be the end of it. But that is not what will happen. That is exactly why there are international coalitions. It seems to me that is also why there is a UN. Thus when the UN and the body of nations comprising it decide to take action against an individual, they all have legitimacy to act, which is not the case if a single nation moves against another.

For the Bloc Quebecois, complying with resolutions is of the utmost importance. As today went on, we gradually learned that agreement has finally been reached in Vienna between the negotiators and the Iraqi regime.

People started saying “Wait a minute. Saddam Hussein has several presidential palaces, while his people are starving”. The fact that he has several palaces does not make him more likeable. It was reported that he was likely to hide things in his palaces. As it happens, the negotiators said that was not on the negotiating agenda because it was already covered by UN resolution 1154 from 1998.

As far as we are concerned, there is no problem. Negotiators and inspectors will be allowed to go anywhere on the Iraqi territory. This is extremely important. However, it is sad that the British and the Americans are now trying to kill this embryonic agreement, arguing that, until the UN adopts a new resolution, they will object to inspectors going in the field because they want their mandate to be clarified.

This approach does not seem to fly at the Security Council at this time. China appears to be opposed, as is Germany. Of course, Great Britain is siding with the Americans. France does not seem to agree with such a resolution or such an approach by the Americans, or with any other resolution that would have to go before the UN to add further requirements. It seems to me that we have obtained what we wanted.

Inspectors will go in the field. If something happens, they can go back to the UN to explain that problems were encountered and to try to solve these problems, but military action would not be excluded in that case.

We believe that a unilateral intervention by the Americans at this time is unacceptable. For one thing, we think that it will ignite the whole region.

The governments of countries near Iraq are already having problems with certain Islamic movements. I am referring to Egypt and Saudi Arabia. When these people see images of unilateral or bilateral action by the United States and Great Britain, and when they see the devastation wrought by the western world in Iraq, they will say to themselves, “We cannot agree to this anymore”. Then there will be problems. We run the risk of having much more extreme Islamic governments than the governments that are currently in place in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

These famous pre-emptive strikes pose a problem. It is a new military and international relations doctrine, and we cannot agree to it. If we allow the United States to strike Iraq, because it allegedly has evidence, which is far from convincing as far as we are concerned, we could never oppose China striking Taiwan, as an example. Nor could we object in a number of other examples. I am thinking of India and Pakistan. We could not object to India, on its own and through its secret service, invoking something against Pakistan and striking it. This cannot be, under international law. It is a very slippery slope and the Bloc Quebecois objects to it strongly.

If we allow the United States to do this, others could do likewise at any time, by saying that they have evidence and believe that they are going to be attacked, then attacking their opponent without first consulting the international community.

The United States and Great Britain should know that they cannot act alone. The resolutions are clear. Let us stand by them and send in the inspectors. If they have problems, then let them return. Military force, the imposition of force is hardly being excluded, but we need to give inspectors a chance to do their job first.

When it comes to this, I think that what happened today really will help them go in and do their job. For us, it is clear. Let the inspectors do their job and if it does not work out, let them come back.

This same debate is taking place in several parliaments. It already took place in Great Britain and it will take place in France next week, I believe.

We would very much like the federal government to finally make up its mind about its new policies concerning international relations, foreign affairs and national defence. They always react on a case by case basis. There is no clear policy. The national defence policy has not been reviewed since 1994. I do not know when the foreign policy was reviewed last, but it has been a while.

Ever since 9-11, international relations throughout the world and the planet have gone into overdrive. So, the time has come for Canada to sit down and say “This is our foreign policy on which the demands on and the needs of the Canadian armed forces will be based”.

Right now, we do not know where we stand. I think it is important to clarify our position in the very near future. In the throne speech yesterday, the government indicated that it would be doing so over the next two years. This mean that National Defence and Foreign Affairs could well be forgotten in the next budget, in February. They might even miss out on the 2003-04 budget.

Therefore, I think it is urgent that Canada sit down and say, “Here is our new policy”. This would help establish a framework for the type of discussion that we are having this evening.

In conclusion, I hope that the government will have the decency to propose a debate during which we will have to make a decision as to whether we are going to Iraq with the Americans or with a coalition. Personally, I hope that the government will have the decency to propose a vote in Parliament. I am tired of being told that there is a provision in the Constitution that allows the executive branch to decide alone.

We have reached the point where the Prime Minister decides alone. The Minister of the Environment discovered that the Kyoto protocol would be ratified. He did not even know; imagine, he found out about it in the newspapers the next day.

It is also up to us, the elected representatives of the public here, to discuss this issue; it is up to Parliament to decide what we will get into. This is very important. The future of our armed forces, of our young Quebeckers and Canadians who want to do their duty, is at stake. We do not accept that a single person or a small group of people around the Prime Minister should make this decision on our behalf.

This is the message that we are sending and I hope that the government will listen and come before Parliament to get its mandate, because it would make it a lot more legitimate.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate our colleague from Saint-Jean for a very clear and eloquent speech, as usual.

I would like to ask him a question that is relevant to this debate, albeit indirectly, since he is defence critic.

We heard the Minister of Defence talk tonight as if Canada could brag about having extraordinary military equipment.

I read recently in the newspapers that other countries have expressed concerns about the lack of equipment, particularly for transporting troops and military equipment. We know that, last year, a particular piece of transportation equipment was rented and that, in the end, the shipment was not delivered like it should have been.

In that regard, what does the member think of this type of equipment and resources, when some people are full of themselves and say that they are ready to attack just anybody, as the Minister of Defence did tonight?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In fact, the minister cannot brag about the present state of the Canadian forces.

Globally, we are still seen as pygmies as far as our army goes, compared to the international force. There is no doubt that all the equipment is obsolete. Our forces have dropped from 87,000 to 57,000. We were unable to continue our action in Afghanistan because we did not have the human and materiel resources to do so.

Clearly, some things will have to change. But I would like to take advantage of the question from my colleague to remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois does not necessarily oppose an increase in funding for National Defence. However, we would like to have what I was calling for earlier, which is a clear national defence policy.

Taxpayers, the ones footing the bill, must decide what kind of army they now want. Will we put more money into ground forces, the navy, or the air force? These are things we must look at closely. There is an order of priority and we agree that funding will eventually have to be made available, but a clear policy will be needed.

In the meantime, I urge the minister, much as my colleague did, not to brag too much. As for the contribution of Canadian forces in international conflicts, even though we are recognized as having expertise in peacekeeping missions, the things our forces can do right now are very limited.

He must release his national defence policy as soon as possible and the Minister of Foreign Affairs should do likewise with his foreign affairs policy, so that they can be linked together and a clear policy produced on the type of actions we now wish to undertake in international peacekeeping missions and in missions that are perhaps a bit more aggressive. It is up to taxpayers to decide. The government must consult the public in order to come up with a clear defence and foreign affairs policy.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West—Mississauga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first victim in war is the truth. How long do we sit around and watch people rewrite history, history that we have all experienced and seen, in order to justify what is happening in the Middle East, to justify the actions of Israel and to justify the impending actions of the United States?

The “let's bomb Iraq” press is becoming like the National Enquirer . Propagandists are busy winning the war on words. We are dreaming up scenarios to portray the white hats and the black hats. Of course the black hats are the scuds and the axis of evil, short of Darth Vader, while we white hats, when we kill people, we call it collateral damage. We use patriot missiles and we have smart bombs. Better that we had smart politicians with smart advisers.

Books written recently on Islam and Jihad are so vile with misinformation that had the authors written them about any other sect they would be subjected to serious legal action. Yet those of us who know better are reluctant to speak out lest we be accused of supporting terrorism.

May I point out to the House that the only two countries that have consistently fought al-Qaeda are Iran and Russia. It appears that Iran will be the next target. Al-Qaeda was financed to fight the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Two years ago we really did not care much about how the Taliban treated its own people. The hypocrisy that the western world is going through today is a disgrace. Perhaps we in the western world should reread Frankenstein . When we create a monster it is sure to turn around and bite us.

But let us stick to Iraq. Prior to the star wars of 1991, Iraq was a country like all others in the Middle East under a dictatorship. However, it was a progressive country with health care for all and education and human rights for women, which is far more advanced than other friendly Middle Eastern countries. It was a secular state offering a relative degree of equality for all its citizens. That is not to say that I support Saddam Hussein.

We left Iraq completely destroyed. We took out its power facilities and its water purification plants and left its people in conditions which were far worse than conditions of 50 years ago. Reports of barefoot, unarmed returning Iraqi soldiers being killed have been published. Buried or not, these reports will return to shame us in the eyes of future generations. That was not enough. We imposed total sanctions against the people while a UN search team searched for six years for weapons of mass destruction and destroyed traces of those weapons.

We all stand and condemn human rights abuses around the world, but the human rights abuses that occurred as a result of UN sanctions were far more vile and hideous than they were anywhere else. We left one million children dead.

These sanctions were stringent. People were not allowed to have syringes or hardware to build water purification plants. They were allowed no shampoo for lice and no pencils that contained lead. UN workers quit in protest. In Canada, an all-party committee voted unanimously to take the position of promoting the de-linking of sanctions to allow the necessities for survival to be allowed into the country.

However, there were others in the world. Tony Blair and Madeleine Albright argued that these sanctions were working but were not sanctions against the people, that they were working and stopping Saddam Hussein. Today they say they did not work because, in spite of the sanctions, Tony Blair claims that weapons of mass destruction are being amassed as we speak here tonight.

Tony Blair's report is another non-proof document, yet if his speculation is correct then we have killed a million children for nothing. I am going to read from Robert Fisk. He states:

Here is one example of the dishonesty of this “dossier”. On page 45, we are told--in a long chapter, about Saddam's human rights abuses--that “on March 1st, 1991, in the wake of the Gulf War, riots (sic) broke out in the southern city of Basra, spreading quickly to other cities in Shia-dominated southern Iraq. The regime responded by killing thousands”. What's wrong with this paragraph is the lie...in the use of the word 'riots'. These were not riots. They were part of a mass rebellion specifically called for by President Bush Jnr's father and by a CIA radio station in Saudi Arabia. The Shia Muslims of Iraq obeyed Mr. Bush Snr's appeal. And were then left to their fate by the Americans and British, who they had been given every reason to believe would come to their help. No wonder they died in their thousands. But that's not what the Blair “dossier” tells us.

Americans are not unanimous in their lust for war. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark sent a letter to the UN. One point which he asserts, and which I believe our minister believes as well, is this:

1. George Bush is Leading the United States and Taking the UN and All Nations Toward a Lawless World of Endless Wars.

George Bush in his “War on Terrorism” has asserted his right to attack any country, organization, or people first, without warning in his sole discretion. He and members of his administration have proclaimed the old restraints that law sought to impose on aggression by governments and repression of their people, no longer consistent with national security.

This is a dangerous, dangerous precedent.

I was very proud of my Prime Minister at the United Nations. I am very proud of the position that our Minister of Foreign Affairs has taken. Canada has a role to play. I know that the minister believes that the UN is doing the negotiating with the United States. However, I believe that we are in a very special position because we are their friends, they are our friends, and I think that we have a position where we can be an honest broker in solving some of the problems.

I had heard tonight, just before coming, that the UN has not accepted the U.S. resolution. It says it will not work. I hope that early tomorrow morning our minister will be on the phone talking with Washington.

Finally, I would like to end tonight by telling everyone in this room that each and every one of us, before we come to any conclusions about going to war against any people, should have a jihad of our very own. A jihad is a religious or spiritual struggle in which we must conquer the evil and good within ourselves. Any other use of that word is incorrect.

My apologies go to all of our Muslim Canadians who have suffered under the propaganda that we are building up to justify this war. I say to them to hang in there, because I am sure that Canada will do right by them.