Debates of Oct. 1st, 2002

Iraq

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

Mr. Speaker, I detect a certain cognitive dissonance in what this member has to say. On the one hand, she lauds the United Nations as the font of virtue in international policy and yet she goes on to blame it for the most hideous human rights violations imaginable, in the form of its sanctions on Iraq to compel the regime there to comply with some 16 UN resolutions. I am wondering if she could perhaps square this contradiction. If she has so much faith in the United Nations, then why does she at the same time accuse it of hideous violations of human rights?

Further, is she not aware that the figure that she uses of a million children having died as a result of sanctions in fact has been exhaustively studied, including by independent Middle Eastern experts, and is found to have no basis in fact? It is a figment of the Iraqi regime.

Finally, she says that she is very proud of the position taken by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Is she not aware, and perhaps she was not in the chamber, that her very minister this evening pointed out that any deaths or any suffering as a result of those sanctions are the fault of the Iraqi regime, as he said, which at any time could stop the sanctions by complying with the UN resolutions? Does she not agree with her minister on that point?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that when the United Nations first imposed these sanctions they thought they would be short term. However, as it went on it became clear and it was obvious, as Denis Halliday and other members of the search team quit, that the sanctions were not working, that they were hurting the people.

I love my minister dearly, but he and I often disagree on different points and have quite an interesting time coming to a compromise on them. However, I think that the sanctions ended up being very wrong, and those numbers are not incorrect.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is important to recall for members of the House that affection passing between them must pass through you as the Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am not sure that was a point of order, but I am glad everybody likes everybody else.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try not to get sidetracked by some of the debate I heard over the last few minutes. I must admit it will be quite difficult because quite frankly we heard some nonsense from members on the government side. There is no other way to describe it. It is very unfortunate.

There is a vast difference of opinion in government. That is fine but there are certain situations when a little more research is necessary. Some members put forth quite shocking positions basically blaming our closest friend and ally, the United States, for what has happened in Iraq. It is simply not true. It is unacceptable and I hope we do not hear more of that tonight.

I will not get into too much of that. As defence critic for the official opposition I want to talk about what Canada could and could not deliver if called upon to support our allies in a war against Iraq, something that all of us hope can be averted. Nevertheless we all know Saddam Hussein's past record. We simply cannot count on him. War is a real possibility and we must consider that.

I wish to begin with a comment made by our defence minister earlier tonight in debate in the House. He said that Canada would not hesitate to provide military support if needed if Iraq did not comply with weapons inspectors. I have no problem with the statement. It is certainly what Canada should do but the question I will talk about later is what we could contribute. He said we should provide military support but I want to talk about what we could and could not provide.

It is interesting to see how many Liberals have been shocked by the position laid out by their own ministers who said that if need be, if Iraq would not comply with the UN resolution on weapons inspectors, that we should then be prepared to take military action.

It is quite surprising indeed to see the strong, vehement reaction to that from some government MPs and some opposition MPs from other political parties. They seem to forget that as short a time ago as 1998 their Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister, supported without a UN resolution, the bombing of Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom. That is a fact. That is something that many of these people have completely forgotten.

At the time, I did not heard government members speak out against that action. They seemed to support it with their silence. Why now are they trying to deny what in fact happened in 1998? Why now are they so shocked with the possibility of Canada supporting action in Iraq once again? It is a little hard to understand but the government's position has not been as clear as many Canadians would like to see.

As little as a month ago we had the foreign affairs minister and the Prime Minister take the position that under no circumstances would Canada be involved in military action in Iraq. That was about a month ago.

Three weeks ago both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs said they needed proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they needed proof that it would be used against Canada or an ally before they would take any action. That is what they said. Members should check the record unless government members are saying that the media has been all wrong on this. They are quoted in the media taking that position.

Now three weeks or a month later we have the government taking an entirely different position, the correct position, that in fact, if Iraq does not comply with the UN resolution on weapons inspectors, then we will be involved with our allies in military action if needed.

That is not a stellar foreign affairs position or stream of events. Consistency is extremely important on foreign affairs issues and it simply has not been here with the government.

Instead the initial reaction was American bashing and anti-American statements even on the part of ministers. Our closest friend and ally and it gets bashed and even blamed by the Prime Minister as being responsible somehow for the terrorist attacks. This is a foreign affairs disaster. Canada has paid a price for that already, and we certainly will pay more in the future.

I have strayed from the area I want to talk about tonight and that is what Canada could deliver. What could Canada deliver if asked? Let us look at what has happened over the past few months. Canada made a commitment of six months in Afghanistan to fight the war against terrorism with our allies. Our soldiers did a marvellous job. American commanders said the Canadian soldiers were better trained and better soldiers than many of their own. That is quite a statement coming from American military leaders. We have among the best in the world. They are well trained, capable people and admirable indeed. Unfortunately the equipment they are asked to work with is completely unacceptable. That was also pointed out again and again by Americans who were fighting alongside our troops.

When asked for a second six month commitment in Afghanistan of ground forces we could not comply. We had to pull our ground forces out. Our military leadership said they were burned out to such an extent we could not contribute longer. We had to pull more than half the force, the navy and air force, out of the area of Afghanistan. Then we had to cut our contingent in our next rotation into the Balkans because our troops were that badly burned out.

Now, we are facing the possibility of being asked by our allies, and the defence minister agreeing, to make a significant contribution in an attack in Iraq. What realistically can we deliver?

I must agree with what the minister said in one respect. He said it depends on how urgent the situation is. I do not know how he defines what an urgent situation is but he is right in saying that in the short term we could contribute a significant effort again for a six month period. However he did not carry it to the next step which is we simply could not sustain any meaningful contribution in Iraq beyond that six month commitment.

That is not what our allies are looking for and that is not what Canadians are looking for when they are looking for Canada to play its role in a serious situation like this war on terror and the possible war in Iraq. It is not what Canadians want. We cannot contribute what we should.

In terms of equipment, if we are asked for some type of air support our F18s have not been upgraded so that they can fly with our allies. They simply do not have the secure communications system and other high tech equipment needed for us to operate with our allies. As far as the navy, we do not have helicopters that would be absolutely necessary in a situation like that. We have good frigates worth almost a billion dollars a piece and for the sake of not having capable helicopters to put on board they are deemed almost useless in a situation like that. Their value is decreased dramatically, so we could not provide an awful lot there, although we could provide something for a short time. We know our ground forces are burned out. We cannot contribute for an extended period of time whatsoever.

The minister said we must be prepared to support that and we must be prepared to be part of a rapid reaction force that NATO has proposed. That could be put together quite quickly. It could even be part of a war against Iraq. That would be a 20,000 member force. Our minister said we would contribute hundreds to that commitment. That would be absolutely a wasted effort unless we get the strategic airlift to get our men and equipment there quickly and get the high tech equipment that would be absolutely necessary for us to work with our allies in that type of rapid reaction force.

Our men and women, among the best in the world, are let down once again by the lack of action on the part of the government. We do not have enough people or proper equipment to contribute. It is a sad reality, one created by the government over the past nine years and by other governments in the 20 or 30 years before that.

Canadians will pass judgment on all of these people. I want to see action in this next budget, a minimum of $2 billion per year added to the base budget of our military so that we can start the rebuilding process and make meaningful contributions in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make more of a comment than anything else.

The member, as is often the case, deplores what he feels is the sad state of our military and so often overlooks Canada's great accomplishments in the military field, which will be of tremendous importance should we be engaged in Iraq. I refer to the fact that we have one of the most sophisticated battlefield response teams for biological warfare that exists on the planet. We have the capability of dispatching teams anywhere in the world that can detect and respond to a biological attack.

It is this type of contribution that we should acknowledge, given the very tense moments that are facing us, that Canada does have the ability to contribute in a way that is unique to Canada and shows the kind of expertise that we have acquired in this field over the last 50 years.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of going to the base at Borden where the NBC team trains. I was shocked to hear what I heard from the people on the ground there. This was about two or three years ago, but there has not been an awful lot of change from what I have been told.

The fact is that force there is a training force. It is not actually there to provide the type of response that the member talked about. It is a training force. It has improved only slightly its capability. We could contribute something in that area but that would not be enough of a contribution; certainly not the contribution expected from a country like Canada.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that the member for Lakeland has a great regard for consistency in international affairs. I wonder if he could help me out with a few problems I have concerning the United States in that regard.

I start with Iraq which, Donald Rumsfeld told us the other day, through Congress, was such an evil country during the war with Iran that clearly this was proof that the United States had to act. He is the person who ought to know because he was Ronald Reagan's personal emissary to Saddam Hussein in 1983 to support Iraq in its war against Iran. I want help on that bit of consistency.

I want help on Osama bin Laden. In the 1980s the United States supported the Mujahedeen against the Russians; the Mujahedeen morphed into the Taliban, and we know where that led. I would like some help on that consistency.

I would like help, finally, on the consistency issue of this past year when we started out, from September to December, with a war on terrorism and by January we were attacking a totally different set of players called the “axis of evil”, which started out as three and is now six.

Could the member help me with the consistency with regard to American foreign policy over the past 20 years, please?

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to defend all actions of our American friend and ally from the past, but I would like to comment on what he calls an inconsistency when he is fighting this war on terror.

It is not only the al-Qaeda that is a threat here. How could the member argue that Saddam Hussein, with his weapons of mass destruction, with his willingness to use these weapons, which has been demonstrated clearly in the past, is not a threat and is not someone who has to be dealt with on this war against terror? Iraq has disobeyed a UN resolution for how long now and has gone against an agreement it signed to end the war. I do not see any inconsistency in that.

Times have changed. I understand what the member is talking about, in terms of the Americans and the other two situations, but the reality is the world situation has changed. He better ask that of the Americans, quite frankly.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this take-note debate on the subject of Iraq, we are all invited to share our feelings and ideas regarding a situation that has become increasingly hot and complex, particularly since the Bush administration has decided to make it, or so it seems, the number one priority of its foreign policy.

Just over a year ago, we were having the same type of special debate in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11.

In both cases, there is one question that we must ask ourselves as Canadians and as parliamentarians: what are the reference points that could guide us in this debate and in the actions that could result from it, as we saw a year ago, through the alliance formed to fight terrorist groups from Afghanistan, an alliance which, let us not forget, is sanctioned by the UN and of which Canada is a member? Therefore, this kind of debate can have real consequences.

My first point of reference is to reaffirm my trust in multilateral action and my mistrust in unilateral initiatives.

It was with great pride that, this morning, I heard our Prime Minister reaffirm this great principle of Canada's international policy, and I quote:

I am a great believer in a multi-lateral approach to dealing with international issues. The United Nations can be a great force for good in the world. It is in all of our interests to use the power of international institutions in this complex world...It is the best way to deal with states which support terrorism or who attempt to develop weapons of mass destruction. And deal with them we must. We must deal collectively and directly with those who threaten our peace and security.

It seems to me that our second benchmark should be the following: as the neighbour of the United States, are we condemned to automatically follow their political agenda, or can we still conduct our own analysis of the international situation? Can we allow ourselves to support our own priorities, in spite of our economic relations and our necessary relations for security and defence purposes?

I believe that we owe it to ourselves and to Canadians to take the time to hold our own debates and make our own decisions, based on our own values, beliefs and interests.

This morning again, I was very pleased to hear our Prime Minister repeat that, in these unsettled times of international terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and war in several parts of the world, and I quote:

We have a special role to play because of the nature of our country. A country that has proven that pluralism works. And so we will continue to promote the values of democracy, peace and freedom, human rights and the rule of law.

In order to clearly delineate our concerns and also our government's priorities for action, the Prime Minister announced that we would be taking the appropriate measures to ensure that our values and interests are defended in the long term, including the use of appropriate military force.

However, he also said that first and foremost, we would affirm ourselves as Canadians through our strong commitment to fighting poverty both in Africa and at home, through our commitment to doubling international assistance by 2010, through support for developing countries in investments and trade, and through our resolute commitment to working for sustainable development both in terms of our own environmentally-friendly resources and internationally.

This is what it means to be Canadian, here at home and internationally. We have no interest in betraying our priorities and our values to fall in line with our neighbours to the south who could have other priorities just as important as looking for trouble in Iraq, I should think. Particularly when one considers the colossal deficit the Bush administration is ringing up, and when one considers the state of the U.S. health care system and health care costs in the United States, and when one considers all the work that remains to be done in literacy and in fighting poverty on the home front there. I would think there would be other targets that are just as legitimate, even more so.

My third point of reference consists in asking myself how we are to arrive at a reasonable resolution of this entire conflict with Iraq, which, it must be remembered, has been going on for more than ten years. There is no denying that the list of the Iraqi regime's violations of UN resolutions, leaving aside the new facts supplied by the Americans and the British, is a lengthy and reprehensible one, and there is no point in playing it down.

Nor should we forget that it is this same reprehensible regime which the United States supported against Iran in the 1980s.

We must not ignore the death and suffering of millions of Iraqi civilians in the wake of sanctions which were supposed to topple the regime, with the success we all know.

And we must not forget that seven countries possess nuclear arms and that ten others could produce them within a short period of time, that 19 countries are said to possess chemical and biological weapons, and that 16 of them apparently have the means to deploy them over long distances, according to the information of the Federation of American Scientists.

I am sure that we would all agree that this information is rather disturbing. It also leads us to ask legitimate questions about the merits of the position or about the strategy of the current U.S. administration. Why are they going after Iraq at this time, since the situation over there has not changed in the last few years? In fact, in the areas of human rights or weapons of mass destruction, the situation over there is no more and no less disturbing than in many other countries.

The Bush administration sometimes argues that Iraq was in collusion with the terrorists who attacked the United States. But the evidence is weak, if not non-existent. One day, the Bush administration says it wants to disarm the Iraqi regime. The next day, it wants to overturn the regime and even get rid of Saddam Hussein, which, in terms of international law, is not at all the same thing. One day, the Bush administration says it wants to build an alliance with other countries and work with the United Nations. The next day, it is ready to go to war all by itself if need be.

Is the Bush administration going after Iraq to deflect attention away from the fact that it has not reached its anti-terrorism objectives? Is it trying to cover up the inefficiency of its intelligence services in the months preceding the events of September 11? Or does the Bush administration need a target abroad to try to get a greater majority at home?

In any case, I hope Canada, like most of the members of the UN security council, will agree to ensure that the United States and the United Nations act in good faith. Acting in good faith will prevent them from being found guilty, whatever happens. If exhaustive and careful inspections are carried out and no evidence is found, the logical thing to do would be to lift the sanctions that have hurt so many people.

If the inspections indicate that there is a problem, they should go back to the UN security council. It would be up to the council to take the appropriate measures to deal with the issue.

This is what I think the next few steps should be. I do hope Canada will play a positive role and initiate a rapprochement with the Arab Muslim countries, which have always seemed to find themselves among the main targets of the United States in the last few years.

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

Mr. Speaker, a trend is developing here tonight among most of the speakers from the Liberal backbench, which I find very troublesome. There has been far greater criticism of the policy of the United States, our ally and the leading democracy of the world, than there has been of the tyrannical, dangerous and aggressive regime in Iraq. I find this very peculiar.

I think that is in contradistinction to the fairly balanced remarks of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who certainly made it very clear that, in the view of the Government of Canada, Iraq is to blame for the current situation in Iraq and that the solution lies with Iraq on whether or not it will finally comply with the 14 outstanding United Nations resolution.

I have two questions for the member. First, he asked whether the Bush administration was targeting Iraq to direct attention from its failure to succeed in the war on terrorism. Is he not aware that the principal American strategic interest in this matter is to avoid having a rogue state such as Iraq provide terrorist networks with weapons of mass destruction which they then can use against the United States, its allies and its interests in a way that is discreet, a way that is difficult to trace back to a state sponsor such as Iraq?

Does the member have any concern whatsoever that left untouched a state such as Iraq, which has demonstrated the power to produce many of these weapons, could use terrorist networks to deliver them to places like Israel or the United States?

Second, how does the member respond to the incontrovertible fact that his government and Prime Minister supported military strikes, which he, I guess, would characterize as unilateral military strikes, by the United States air force and the royal air force against Iraq in 1998 without the coverage of a specific United Nations resolution? How does he square that precedent policy of his government with the position that he articulates this evening?

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his question, the member pretended to be surprised that parliamentarians from a country that is a friend and ally of the Americans would raise questions that seem to be critical of the American strategy with regard to Iraq.

I would remind the member that this kind of criticism has also been voiced by many within the United States. One does not have to be Canadian to express this kind of criticism.

For example, Scott Ritter, the former chief of UN inspectors for disarmament in Iraq, asked that we give peace a chance and reminded everyone that the elimination of a regime is not compatible with the UN charter.

I would also remind my colleague opposite of the words of a former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsay Clark, no doubt a good American, who said that possible military action against Iraq would be “criminal”, these are his words, “illegal” and “irrational” in light of known facts and considering the possible ripple effect. Ramsay Clark has accused the Bush administration of trying to lead the United Nations and the international community toward a world without laws and a world of endless wars. Therefore, he called upon the UN to adhere, in a firm and independent fashion, to the international order dictated by its own charter.

If I had the time, I could also quote a coalition of American churches, called Churches for Middle East Peace, which also made a convincing argument in favour of an alternative approach to the one adopted by the Bush administration with regard to Iraq.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs for this opportunity to debate one of the most important issues that I believe will face this Parliament in many years.

I am probably the only member of the House who was present during the debates in 1990 and 1991 and also probably the only member of the House who has actually had the opportunity to travel to Iraq on three occasions: initially in the fall of 1990 with my former colleagues Lloyd Axworthy and Bob Corbett, a Conservative member from New Brunswick; again with a delegation in the early part of the year 2000; and most recently in May of this year, along with a number of British members of parliament.

It is very clear to me that what is at stake here in this debate and in the very critical decisions that will be made in the weeks and months ahead are the lives of literally tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, the environment in that region and stability throughout the Middle East. It is desperately important that Canada speak out in the strongest possible terms against any possible unilateral military strike that would have disastrous impact on the people of Iraq and on this region.

We have heard eloquent testimony before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I see my colleague from Mercier and other colleagues also who are members of this committee.

We have heard eloquent testimony before our committee from former UN humanitarian coordinators, Denis Halliday and Hans Van Sponeck, about the devastating impact of economic sanctions on the people of Iraq. We know as well that the impact on the environment has led to the very adverse results of depleted uranium on children and indeed huge increases in the level of congenital birth defects. I was in the south of Iraq. I visited the hospitals in Basra and Baghdad and saw for myself those results.

We have heard evidence before the foreign affairs committee and certainly I have had to respond personally to the anguished plea of an Iraqi mother in a children's hospital in Baghdad that was desperately short of the most basic supplies. She asked “Why do you feel you we must kill their children”. I could not answer that question.

I was very proud of the fact that the foreign affairs committee stood and spoke with one strong, powerful and eloquent voice. I might add that the chair of that committee at the time this decision made was the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale. I want to remind members of the House what that committee unanimously called for. The committee called for an end to the economic sanctions, the delinking of economic and military sanctions and a rapid lifting of economic sanctions and a contribution to the overall goal of regional disarmament, a Canadian diplomatic presence and so on.

It is in that context, a context in which hundreds of thousands of innocent children have died, in which a nation's infrastructure in terms of clean water and sewage has been paralyzed, that we are now told by George Bush that there is a concern about weapons of mass destruction, that we must pass a new resolution and obviously that there must be some sort of firm military action to enforce United Nations resolutions.

To accept Bush's insistence that we move in this way is a recipe for disaster. It is also fundamentally dishonest and ignores the history of that region. In fact, members of the House must know that according to the former chief UN weapons inspector, Rolf Ekeus of Sweden, the United States and other Security Council members were manipulating UN inspection teams for their own political ends. I do not have the time to go into that at length, but certainly both Rolf Ekeus and Scott Ritter made it very clear that was the case. In fact Scott Ritter said that far from Iraq kicking out the weapons inspectors in December of 1998 that:

It wasn't Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi government who gave the boot to weapons inspectors from...(UNSCOM). Rather it was the United States. In the person of former President Bill Clinton...

It pushed them out so they could bomb in December 1998.

One might ask who Scott Ritter is. Here is how Scott Ritter describes himself:

I need to say right out front I'm a card-carrying Republican in the conservative-moderate range who voted for George W. Bush for President. I'm not here with a political agenda. I'm not here to slam Republicans. I am one.

This is the source about information about the presence currently of weapons of mass destruction. Ritter said, and he said it clearly and unequivocally to our committee, a committee of this Parliament, that no one had substantiated the allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction or was attempting to acquire weapons of mass destructions. Scott Ritter said:

This is not about the security of the United States. This is about domestic American politics. The national security of the United States of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political ambitions. The day we go to war for that reason is the day we have failed collectively as a nation.

For God's sake, surely our nation, Canada, must be speaking out strongly and clearly to reinforce that message.

Today we received good news. Hans Blix, the chief of the United Nations, UNMOVIC, the monitoring and enforcement inspection commission, has said about Iraq that “On the question of access, is clarified that all sites are subject to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access”. What more can we ask for? Each time they comply, the bar is raised higher and higher.

The spokesperson for the Alliance says that we cannot trust them. Surely we must recognize that when the inspectors go in, they have unfettered access and if there is any suggestion of obstruction of those inspectors, obviously Blix will be in a position to report back quickly to the United Nations, which is where this question belongs.

The hypocrisy in this area is breathtaking. I have heard from a number of my colleagues on this issue already. The silence in March 1988 from the then American government included a number of key administration officials now, about the gassing of Halabja. There was not a word nor a peep. In fact it obstructed the United Nations Security Council efforts to condemn them. Why? Because then Saddam Hussein was our guy.

As well, we have to be honest and recognize that if we are seriously concerned about respect for United Nations resolutions and Security Council resolutions in the Middle East, what country has violated over and over again UN Security Council resolutions with the support, often alone, of the United States? Israel. Yet there is not a word on that. It is the only country in the region that we know for certain possesses over 200 weapons of mass destruction. I remind members of the House that Israel has refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty. It is hypocrisy.

Which country just last year blatantly refused to sign onto United Nations protocol on developing, producing or stockpiling biological or toxic weapons? The United States of America.

I want to once again appeal to the government and to the minister to recognize that it is within the framework of both international law and the United Nations that this must be resolved. It must be resolved with consistency and equity. It must be resolved in a manner that respects the lives of innocent Iraqi people who have suffered already too much.

Over 100 prominent Canadians, Québécois et Québécoises, Canadiens et Canadiennes from everywhere in Canada, Anton Kuerti, Margaret Atwood, Pierre Burton, David Suzuki, and many more have signed a statement calling on our government to endorse the principle of a peaceful resolution of this conflict. They have said it is time to move beyond war, il n'y a pas que la guerre. I urge the minister to heed the eloquent words of these Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. colleague across the way for speaking so eloquently and so passionately. However, I would like to point out to him some of us on this side were in the House in 1988-89 and also spoke on that issue.

Could the hon. member, in his own words, give us an impression of or characterize George Bush and Saddam Hussein and could he differentiate between the two? As well could he try to give us an idea of the difference between what Turkey is doing in Kurdistan to the Kurds and what Saddam Hussein is doing to the Kurds?

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to be very clear. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless and brutal dictator who has gassed his own people, the Kurds in Halabja, and who has suppressed in the most violent and bloody manner the civil liberties of his own people. I said that in May of this year in Baghdad in the presence of Tariq Aziz. I made that very clear that those who are responsible for terrible war crimes whether the killings at Sabra and Shatila or the gassing of Kurds at Halabja, must be brought to justice.

I look forward to the day when the brave people of Iraq are able to live in a democratic society that respects the fundamental human rights of all of its citizens.

This is a ruthless and tyrannical dictator. However why on earth would we punish the people of Iraq in the way that is suggested by Bush? Nelson Mandela said that they think they are the only power in the world. Americans are not and they are following a dangerous policy. One country wants to bully the world. We must not allow that.

The member asksed me what this was about. In March of this year Colin Powell said about the U.S. policy that regardless of what the inspectors did, the people of Iraq and the people of the region would be better off with a different regime in Baghdad. This is about fulfilling what his father did not finish. It is about regime change. It is about oil. It is about mid-term elections and we in Canada must not be a party to that violence and that brutality.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member, since he attributes every motive possible to the American government's desire to enforce UN resolutions, could he perhaps speculate on or ascribe motives to the Labour Party in the United Kingdom and why its members in their conference this weekend endorsed essentially the position taken by my party? What nefarious Oedipus complex does he choose to apply to Prime Minister Blair and his attempt to ensure that international law and the integrity of the United Nations is respected by enforcement of the resolutions?

Further, does my hon. colleague not understand that in terms of the weapons inspection regime, we would be sending yet once again roughly 100 inspectors into a country roughly the size of British Columbia? Clearly the Iraqi regime has now created mobile weapons plants and mobile scud missiles, which can be moved from locale to locale and quickly and easily hidden from weapons inspectors. Is he not aware that previous weapons inspectors have raised this concern?

Finally, while the member quoted Nelson Mandela, is he not aware that Vaclav Havel, one of the great moral heroes of the world today, has called for the world to act together, if necessary using military force to ensure that the integrity of the UN resolution is respected?

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if I have to choose for my facts between an extreme right wing member of the Canadian Alliance and an extreme right wing Republican who was actually on the ground in Iraq for seven years, who was the deputy chief weapons inspector and who has said unequivocally, and I repeat again, that no one has substantiated the allegations that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction or is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction, with great respect to my friend from Calgary, I think I will go with Scott Ritter on this one in terms of the actual facts on the ground.

We want to get the inspectors back in there absolutely. Hans Blix has arrived at an agreement today to do that. I suggest that we allow that to work.

Just a couple of weeks ago the foreign affairs committee took the same position. I want to pay tribute to the member for Mercier and to my own leader, the member for Halifax, for ensuring that the foreign affairs committee had an opportunity to speak out on that very important question.

In terms of the Labour Party, perhaps my colleague is not aware of the fact that the Labour Party motion that was passed in fact just yesterday made it very clear that both international law and the United Nations must be fully respected in any response on weapons of mass destruction.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening to place on the record my views with respect to Canada's possible participation in military action against Iraq.

As I prepared for this debate tonight, I went back and reviewed my comments during a similar debate on military intervention in Iraq back in 1998. I can tell the House that my opinion on this matter has not changed at all since that time.

In the past I supported requests for Canadian participation in peacekeeping missions. I also supported Canada's participation in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. My own son was part of Canada's contingent in that war. I witnessed firsthand the destruction in New York City on September 11 and I agree with the need for some form of retaliation.

However there is one major difference between our past involvement in military and peacekeeping operations and the recent request of the United States for our participation in Iraq. In all of those cases there was an international consensus that action should be taken. However in this case in question, we are talking about unilateral military action led by the United States against Iraq and supported by Britain.

As I stated in February 1998, if this were an internationally sanctioned effort by the United Nations I would be more inclined to support Canada's involvement. I share the frustration of our American and British allies who have been unable to solve the Iraqi situation with diplomatic efforts for over 10 years. I share their concerns that a madman like Saddam Hussein has been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

I agree that the world must act to address the problem, but it would be preferable if the world agreed on a common course of action. I firmly believe that a decision to launch any attack on Iraq should be taken by the United Nations and not by the White House alone. We live in an international community where the actions of one nation can impact on the lives of many. As a result no one nation has the right or moral authority to make decisions that can impact on the lives of those outside its own borders.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, but how was he personally affected by previous military attacks? It was innocent civilians who were the biggest victims during the last set of attacks on Iraq and the sanctions that followed. They suffered starvation and disease and I fear that the result may very well be the same.

Over the years many of my constituents have expressed the desire to see our nation maintain an independent foreign policy instead of following the White House. I continue to share their views.

We should not jump every time there is a change in administration in Washington and a change in the direction of U.S. foreign policy. I have grave reservations about sending our brave men and women of the Canadian armed forces to war until all diplomatic solutions have been exhausted. In fact I would prefer to see Canadian defence policy return to its more traditional roots of peacekeeping rather than peacemaking.

Unless there is a decision by the United Nations to proceed with military force against Iraq, Canada should not contribute troops or participate in any unilateral action against Iraq or any other nation for that matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, this might just be a question of semantics, but we need some clarification of definition here. The member and others use the term unilateral action when it is already very clear that a number of nations have indicated that they would be allied with the United States if certain things were not complied with by Iraq. Great Britain, Qatar, Israel and Australia at the very minimum have said that they would work with the United States if in fact there would be consequences if Iraq did not comply.

Is the hon. member saying that his definition of unilateral is any action taken by a group of nations outside the United Nations? Is that his definition of unilateral? We need that point clarified.

What would be his advice to his own minister? I gather they talk about this in caucus, at least I hope they do. What would be his advice to his own minister should Iraq fail to comply and the Security Council fails to come up with a resolution for some action to be taken? What would be his advice at that point?

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, until recently the United States alone was pushing for action against Iraq. Then the United Kingdom came on board along with some other players.

There is a United Nations resolution which should be respected. There are over 160 UN resolutions on Bosnia and none of them were respected until the Dayton Peace Accord and diplomacy prevailed. I do not see why we have to jump just because there is some urgent action in Washington. I do not see why Canada should follow Washington and White House foreign policy right away. As clearly stated in my speech, I would support this only if there were a decision of the United Nations and if Hussein did not allow or respect that resolution.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to have an opportunity to ask this same question to the minister, but I would pose a two part question to the member.

First, what type of recent evidence is the hon. member or the government aware of which seems so compelling that it has provided satisfaction to the British Prime Minister and his government, similarly that type of evidence that appears to be in the possession of the United States? If he is not aware of current evidence that reaches that criteria, what type of evidence should Canada as a nation be seeking? What type of evidence would the hon. member suggest would be sufficient to warrant Canada's further involvement in moving down the road toward supporting the United States' position of aggression? What type of specific evidence pertaining clearly to the possession by Saddam Hussein and Iraq of weapons of mass destruction would he suggest would meet that criteria?

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is evident that neighbouring countries around Iraq such as Israel, Pakistan, India and others possess weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors are much more qualified than I or probably the majority of us are in the House. If the resolution passed by the United Nations is not respected by Hussein, then action should be taken.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand and speak to this issue tonight. It certainly is one of the most important issues we have talked about in a long time. Many of the issues we discuss are rather trivial but this certainly is not a trivial issue. It is a very important and meaningful debate.

Because of that I find it hard to understand some of the positions taken here tonight. It seems to me that we essentially have two roads from which to choose. One is a road of diplomacy, a road where we try to use all our diplomatic and political energies to find a peaceful resolution to this perceived threat and one that will eliminate the pressure and, in the end, lift the restrictions from the people of Iraq and provide a solution to the problem.

The other road is one of war, of military action, of violence and of aggression which will result in the deaths of thousands of civilians, men, women and children, hundreds of soldiers, maybe our own sons and daughters here, and incredible environmental and property destruction. It will be a long, drawn out conflict.

I do not see how we can talk about a choice of one road or the other when it is so obvious that we must take the diplomatic route, at least at first. It seems that some people want to jump to military action first. Their focus is on military action. It is not on diplomacy. It is not on political resolution.

Certainly we support the road that ensures every diplomatic effort that can be made is taken to avoid some of those awful consequences of the other road, that is, the devastation and fatalities. When someone suggested that if we even suggest a diplomatic route we are waffling, or we are in the middle and not taking a strong stand, I took exception to that. Any time we talk about taking an action that will result in somebody dying, we need to have sober second thought. We cannot just jump on it and say that we must take this action and we must to do it now, especially when the information we have at hand is so limited, unconvincing and lacking in credibility.

The member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough asked what evidence there was. I ask that same question. What current evidence is there of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Everybody says that it is there and that there is no question about it, but I have never seen a photograph or heard a testimony. I have never heard anything that is current which says there are weapons of mass destruction. They may be there but all I am saying is that I have never heard or seen anything with my own eyes that is very convincing.

Today's news that Iraq has agreed to comply with its commitment to the United Nations to allow weapons inspectors in is very encouraging. We all know that is no guarantee. We are not under any illusion that this will solve the problem for sure. If fact I can guarantee everybody that there will be hurdles thrown in the way as we go along, but it is our job together with the international community to overcome those hurdles without sending in soldiers and without using force unless it is absolutely the last option.

Canada's role should be to ensure that Iraq keeps its commitment. We should be applying our own influence to Iraq and to Iraq's friends to apply influence on Iraq to ensure that it complies with those rules. If we are successful there will be no war, no deaths and no women or children will die. There will be no retaliation and no destabilization or environmental degradation and destruction.

This whole debate is so complex that it makes one stop and think about so many different things. As many people have said, one issue that causes a lot of us to be uncomfortable is the unilateral action that was just raised. Whether it is unilateral or a few countries, it does not matter, we need to have rules based diplomacy here. We cannot have strong countries, whatever countries they are, taking action against weaker countries without following international law, international rules and the United Nations. We cannot start down this road and have this happen or it will be just chaos in the international community. Every stronger country will then refer to this action as a precedent for what they want to do to a weaker country. I think it would be a very dangerous divergence from where we have always gone.

Someone brought up regime changes a little while ago. That is a new divergence. How can one country say that it does not like a particular government, no matter how good or bad it is, and that it wants it to change or it will take all the action necessary to change the regime, even though it may not have done anything to harm the aggressor country in the last 10 years. This is a very dangerous road to go down and would set a dangerous precedent. We have already heard that other countries now use that same term of wanting a regime change.

The other issue that bothers me is the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Everybody talks about it but nobody puts the evidence on the table. The United States has not. Great Britain has not. Canada has not.

I asked the question at the foreign affairs committee the other day about what proof we have right now that is current and credible that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. All I heard were references to 10 years ago and that things were really bad. I did not get an answer about today.

What happens if we do attack that country and it turns out that there are no weapons of mass destruction and thousands of people die? I and I do not think anybody in Parliament knows for sure exactly what weapons are there or are not there. For that reason and because we would be putting hundreds and thousands of people's lives at risk, we must explore every diplomatic opportunity and ensure that we take every step before we support military action.

We think that Canada's action plan should be simple. We think that before one Canadian soldier risks his life we, as politicians, and our diplomatic corps should take every step possible to ensure that they have exhausted every opportunity to resolve this issue.

Second, every effort should be made by the government to follow the recent directive by the United Nations and the agreement with Iraq to ensure that it follows up on the agreement, keeps it word this time and allows unfettered access by the United Nations' weapons inspectors.

We must ensure on the overall that we all follow international law and follow the rules of the United Nations, because if we deviate from these then we just set precedents for other countries to do the same thing. Then we will be offended and we may even be the victims of that action if we are not careful.

We must ensure that rules based diplomacy remains the centre of international cooperation in conflict. One superpower, no matter who it is, must not assert its power over a smaller country without the approval of the United Nations and without complying with international law.

That is our position. We say, not necessarily force but, yes, force if absolutely necessary, but first we must explore every diplomatic and political opportunity to avoid one fatality.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester for his remarks and would ask him a paradoxical question.

Has it ever occurred to him about the oddity of life in which there are something like 17 countries that have or are acquiring nuclear arms, 26 countries that have or are acquiring chemical weapons and 20 countries around the planet that have or are acquiring biological weapons, and yet there is one country in the world that has failed to sign two of the treaties, one on biological weapons and the other on chemical weapons, and has weakened the proliferation treaty on nuclear arms?

Could the member explore with me the paradox of singling out one country for special treatment without attending to those other issues and thereby allowing the chances in the future of all sorts of other countries around the world acquiring these very same weapons? Does he understand this paradox, because I do not think I do? Maybe he can help me.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I love the member's paradoxical questions on an oddity of life. No, I cannot answer that question but I think we should all push for conformity and consistency by all countries.

When the member was referring to the oddities of life I was trying to think of another country that was attacked in a pre-emptive strike. Paradoxically it was the United States that was attacked in a pre-emptive strike in 1941 by a country that felt it was at risk by a superpower that had weapons of mass destruction of that day.

There are lots of paradoxes. I cannot explain them but I certainly appreciate the member's question.