Debates of Oct. 1st, 2002

Iraq

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the member when he says that we will only use force if absolutely necessary. Many people talk about the positive developments, as do many of my members. I do hope that Iraq will let the inspectors have a good look but we have been up and down like a yo-yo with Iraq on this. It does not follow through on its commitments.

I have a short comment and then a quick question. War is a possibility if it is absolutely necessary. If called upon, the members of the Canadian Forces will make Canada proud, as they always have. They never complain. They do their duty. They defend our interests at home and abroad and some may die in the process, as we witnessed in Afghanistan. We owe these soldiers the best equipment available.

The Auditor General's report stated that the budget for the Canadian Forces was woefully inadequate. The reported stated that increases should be $6.5 billion to $11 billion over the next five years. We have constantly called upon the government to provide more resources to the military but that has not happened.

Does the member not agree that debates like we are having tonight underscore the vital importance to ensure that we have a properly funded military force in this country, which we believe is so lacking?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will make a comment before I get into the meat of the member's question. This is the kind of thing that bothers me. He just said that some soldiers or some civilians may die in the process. I do not think we could ever say some may die in the process and carry on. I think we have to stop when we say some may die and think it over and give it a sober second thought.

To answer the member's question about equipment for the military, when we were in power we were the last ones to expend any amount of money on the military. We built frigates which have been very successful. The last actual major expenditure we committed was for helicopters. We committed to all kinds of new equipment, land, sea and air, for our military to make sure they were properly equipped. Since 1993 we have seen it all decline, all taken away and there has been absolutely no re-investment in equipment for the military.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for his remarks and refer him to the statement that was signed just last week by over 100 prominent Canadians strongly opposing the impending war and arguing that a military attack on Iraq at this juncture would be profoundly immoral and would almost certainly result in destabilizing repercussions that would endanger the whole world.

Would the member agree with the concluding remarks in the following statement? It reads as follows:

Peace can only be built upon a foundation of diplomacy and justice. We must work to uphold international law and to safeguard human rights, the environment, and global human security. Then, and only then, can the world move beyond terrorism and war.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do support that statement 100%. I personally oppose any impending war, as the member mentioned. I think it is our obligation and our duty to do everything we can to avoid even one fatality. To me that is where our focus should be. It should not be on getting ready for war. That has to be a priority but we have to spend equal time or more on trying to find peaceful solutions.

Today the Leader of the Opposition suggested that I was waffling or in the middle of the road because I was emphasizing the peaceful process and the diplomatic way. That is what I will always do no matter what he says.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this debate as do others. As many have said it is a very important topic that we are debating tonight. It is great to see the minister here throughout the debate. Hopefully his officials are watching the debate on television because this is the purpose of the debate. There has been a tremendous input of positive ideas from all parties on all sides of the House. Hopefully the officials will sift out the good ideas that come from the debate and present them to the minister.

In essence the parties agree on most of the tenets of the present situation and how to solve the present crisis. We would all prefer a peaceful solution. We all want weapons inspections in Iraq. We all want the inspectors to have unlimited access. We would all like Saddam Hussein to voluntarily destroy his weapons of mass destruction and the components thereof. We want a multilateral decision of the United Nations if Canada is ever to go to war. We all think it is despicable that Saddam Hussein has attacked and killed at least 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons.

It is probably obvious that I support the government's position and the position of virtually everyone who has spoken, that we should do everything in our power to achieve a solution to this crisis peacefully. If Canada is to be involved in military action it should be under the rule of international law and through the United Nations.

As chair of the foreign affairs caucus I have talked to many of my colleagues about this. The vast majority of my colleagues, if not all, definitely want us to do everything within our power through a peaceful means to try and achieve a solution in Iraq. Certainly there is goodwill in the world where we can use those various levers.

All of us are delighted with today's decision of an agreement between Iraq and the UN inspection team. I am sure we all hope and pray that this works out, that the inspections are completed and any weapons that exist are destroyed.

In the sad case that an agreement does not occur, then the only thing we are debating tonight is the nature of the dangerous path to war that Canada should take. A decision not to attack Iraq could lead to thousands of deaths and the maiming of innocent people. The decision to attack Iraq could also lead to thousands of deaths and the maiming of innocent people. We need to give very serious consideration to how we proceed. This is why this debate tonight is so important.

My constituents have positions on both sides of the argument. I want to ask some questions. I do not have the answers. There are wise leaders in the House who could provide some answers. I want to ask a number of questions from both viewpoints that people should ask of this serious and complex situation before they come to the final determination if things unfold in an unfortunate manner.

First of all, if Iraq does not allow inspections or destroy its weapons of mass destruction and if we do not attack, what would we feel if our friends, family and acquaintances and other Canadians are killed by one of these weapons as Canadians have been killed by terrorists in the past? How could we live with ourselves after knowing from tonight's debate from the JIC, public domain information, previous inspections and other documents that it was proven or likely that Saddam Hussein attacked his neighbours and his own people with chemical weapons?

What if it was found that Iraq had refurbished its sites for chemical and biological weapon construction, as the independent International Institute for Strategic Studies found at one time that Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon within months of obtaining fissionable material from foreign sources, and that it had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, in spite of having no active nuclear program that would require it?

For those who do not think it is possible for Iraq to develop chemical or biological weapons, they should know that Iraq used mustard and nerve agents against its own people, killing an estimated 5,000 people.

One chemical weapon was mustard gas which when inhaled damages the respiratory tract and causes vomiting and diarrhea. An attack can damage the eyes and mucous membranes, the lungs, skin and blood-forming organs.

Not only did Iraq produce 2,850 tonnes of mustard gas but 210 tonnes of tabun, 795 tonnes of sarin and cyclosarin and 3.9 tonnes of VX. The latter nerve agents can all produce muscular spasms, paralysis and death.

There were also biological agents. In 1991 Iraq had produced 8,500 litres of anthrax, which we know can cause fever, internal bleeding and death. It produced 2,200 litres of aflatoxin which can cause liver inflammation, cancer and death. In pregnant women it can lead to stillborn babies and children born with mutations. Do we want this to happen to Canadians? Do we want this to happen to anyone? It had produced 19,000 litres of botulinum toxin. This is one of the most toxic substances known. Paralysis leads to death by suffocation.

Since 1998 it is likely that Iraq has recalled its nuclear scientists to the program and tried to procure both uranium and centrifuge equipment. It is estimated that a nuclear weapon is between one and two years to production. No one wants another Hiroshima.

There are other questions that must be asked. What if we do attack? If we do not have a grand coalition in this consensus what effect will a unilateral attack on millions of supporters of Islam around the world have? What will their future actions in the world lead to?

I have received a number of e-mails. As I said my constituents are split. A number are against Canada attacking at this time. This one is from a young man. I will read a couple of sentences:

I write to you in order to express my opposition to possible Canadian support of the use of military force for the purpose of regime change in Iraq. Any military measure taken in Iraq could trigger a much greater conflict with the wider Arab world and certainly increase the likelihood of future terrorist acts. I don't know if my note to you will make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, however I figure it can't hurt.

I would like Alex to know his note has been heard in Parliament and that every time a constituent writes I read it and it has an effect.

As was asked tonight by many speakers, why this particular tyrant and this particular dictator of the many in the world and why now? What is this policy of pre-emptive strikes? Canada, U.S.A., Australia, France and the U.K. all have powerful weapons. What is to stop someone from one day doing a pre-emptive strike on any of us? How many innocent civilians would be killed in such an attack? If we work to replace an unpopular regime who is to stop people in other nations replacing unpopular regimes in Canada or the United States one day? Where is the evidence from the United States on the terrorism links and the Iraqi weapons that the U.S. government could use to convince more of its own citizens of the clear and present danger?

We should be ever mindful of how we tread on the sovereignty of others lest they choose to tread on ours.

I am sure we all hope for the saving of thousands of innocent lives that the present inspection that has been agreed to today goes ahead and is successful. If it is not I have posed a number of questions on both sides of the situation that should be asked by our leaders and carefully thought out. All the detailed ramifications must also be thought out before we decide on this very serious course of action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Yukon on reflecting on the clear, overwhelming, and categorized evidence relating to the potential of Saddam Hussein and his capabilities, be they chemical, biological or nuclear.

I must say that we respect what anyone says in this place. We can also say we are astounded and I am astounded when I hear other members in this place, such as the member for Cumberland—Colchester, actually say that there is not enough evidence. I realize he will automatically, as members do, dismiss the data of the United States as if it is not relevant. However, what more is needed than the extensive analysis and work of the intelligence agencies in Great Britain, Germany and our own CSIS which is overwhelming in its documentation? I congratulate the member for Yukon for acknowledging that. It is one thing to raise the question, but we must press on to a resolution of this matter.

I would like to ask the member these questions. In the case where Iraq and Saddam Hussein violate the weapons procedures that are hopefully about to unfold and the UN Security Council does not endorse action, would the hon. member be recommending to his minister that we join the growing coalition which is not unilateral that has said there must be a signal sent to Saddam Hussein that a violation of these resolutions will bring consequences?

Will his advice at that time to his minister be that we should join that multilateral coalition of our allies though it may not be endorsed by the UN Security Council?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for those questions. As I tried to explain in my speech, first, I am not totally happy that we have a large enough coalition and, second, enough information.

I am glad the member spoke about information in his opening remarks. I am not satisfied that we have enough information in this area from the United States and others. I stated that I hoped for a much grander coalition, especially those countries in the region who would be most threatened by, for example, the extended use of missiles that Iraq has and is producing so that it can send these agents even farther. If we had a number of those nations who are most threatened on side, we would have a much more convincing case to make those decisions.

I will be waiting on the information that I am talking about from a broader coalition before making any ultimate recommendations. However, until that time I will certainly be urging the government to do everything in its power, and all the other levers outside military power, to resolve this situation.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in the House not on a good topic. The possibility of war is never a pleasant topic. I want people to understand that the only reason we are standing here tonight in the House, the only reason we are having this take note debate and the only reason we are even discussing this issue is because of the will of our forefathers who had the courage to stand up to tyrants such as we are talking about tonight and fight for that right. I want to thank those people. We should remember when we are in this discussion tonight that a lot of them sacrificed their lives to allow us to stand here fighting against people such as Saddam Hussein.

There are those on the other side of the House and in the general population who will refuse to see just how big a threat to world peace and stability Saddam Hussein really is. The hard evidence is overwhelming if we only just look at his track record to date. Add on the mountain of evidence that says he is building and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and the only logical conclusion can be that he must be stopped and stopped soon.

He is a man, a brutal man, who has caused the death of thousands and thousands of people and threatens the lives of millions more. He is simply and unarguably a mass murderer in anybody's description. This is not fresh and new evidence. His own son-in-law who escaped his clutches in 1995 revealed at that time that Saddam Hussein was accumulating biological weapons.

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt what he did to the people of Iran. We know what he did in Kuwait. We know how many he killed in Kurdistan. We know what he has done to anyone in Iraq who has posed a challenge, imagined or otherwise.

Why does the government waffle and dodge and not act in the best interests of not just ourselves but the whole world? How many more condemnations of the Security Council will we see before decisive action is taken?

Sixteen times that man has broken separate resolutions passed by the UN Security Council, the highest body of the UN, and we still waffle. “Give him one more chance” is what I hear. “Give him one more chance; maybe he will change”. How many times more?

Time is not on the side of the millions who face a direct attack from Saddam Hussein. If anything, time is on the side of Saddam Hussein. The more time he has to prepare before we take pre-emptive action, the more time we allow him to build these awful weapons, the more danger we put the world in.

Consider what a new and democratic regime might do for Iraq if all that wealth was not being squandered on finding new and terrible ways to kill people. In the last four years, since the United Nations' flagrant violation resolution, we can only guess and shudder at how much more he has at his disposal.

The government's chronic neglect of our armed forces puts Canada in a very awkward position. We simply cannot ask our men and women in the forces to do any more than they are doing now. The government obviously does not have the same concerns about our military but I do not believe even the Liberals could be so cruel as to try to squeeze much more out of those overworked and underpaid dedicated defenders of our sovereignty and freedom.

As has been said by other members in the House, even if we cannot afford to offer military support to our friends and our allies, the very least we could be doing and should be doing in the House is offering our moral support.

This is not warmongering. It is simply realizing the truth and looking at the evidence.

Saddam Hussein does, beyond a shadow of a doubt, pose a threat to the whole world. He is a menace to every country, including his own. In the Middle East he harbours terrorists within the borders of Iraq.

The United Nations has been unable to reason with Saddam Hussein, just as we cannot reason with a rabid dog. A man like Saddam Hussein, who has expressed no remorse or concern of any kind for any of his actions or for the victims of those actions, is not a man of reason. All he knows is brute strength. It is very likely that even brute strength will not stop him.

Saddam Hussein does not concern himself or show any discomfort in being harshly condemned for his actions by the United Nations. How could anyone possibly think anything less than pre-emptive military action will stop him?

There are those on the other side and some on this side who would like to negotiate with Saddam Hussein and try to reason with him. They are fooling themselves. If they think the man who launched the war in Kuwait, who slaughtered the people of Kurdistan, who slaughtered the Kurds and used chemical weapons on them will listen to reason, I think they had better give their heads a shake.

Any man who uses chemical weapons against other humans, including pregnant women so that infants are born with horrific birth defects, is not a man who will listen to reason. Any individual who stockpiles chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry capable of killing millions will not listen to reason. Saddam Hussein is beyond the point of reason. He may well be certifiably insane. We do not rub the ears of a rabid dog and we do not try to reason with murderous madmen like Saddam Hussein.

All the soft words that can be uttered and all the negotiations for eternity will not stop this man. Consider the lessons of history. Over 60 years ago Neville Chamberlain thought reason and goodwill would prevail. How very wrong he was. They sat and did nothing until it was too late. We lost a lot of good people because of sitting and waiting. We cannot afford to let that happen again.

If Saddam Hussein is not stopped and stopped soon, the only peace in our time will be between right now and the day in the very near future when he begins to launch the weapons of mass destruction against the world. For those who like to sit here and think that we will be safe in this country, I have news for them: we will not be safe. Biological weaponry does not pick or choose where it goes or know only those who supply it. We are more at risk than ever before.

It is time we stood up on behalf of the people, on behalf of our allies, on behalf of those who would stand beside us in our time of need. It is time we got rid of all this anti-Americanism and stopped mollycoddling people like Saddam Hussein. We can supply all the money he wants. We can give him what he wants, but the money will be used to create more weaponry to use against humanity. It is past time that we stood up to this type of person and put a stop to it in this world. On behalf of humanity, it is time we did something.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Okanagan--Shuswap. Clearly since so many other countries around the world possess or are on the road to possessing nuclear arms, chemical weapons and biological weapons, the whole premise of his argument rests upon an interpretation of the intention of Saddam Hussein.

As a former professor of history, I must say I have heard a lot of interesting analogies over the past few weeks with Hitler. It seems to me however that these analogies really do not apply at all because in the 1930s we did not stop Hitler. We had the Rhineland. We had Czechoslovakia. We also had a very different sort of personality. I would recommend to the hon. member the new biography by Ian Kershaw in two volumes which outlines in some detail exactly what we were dealing with, a very different personality, a suicidal personality, not someone who has attempted to create a legacy, a dynasty, palaces and a lifestyle which he wishes to preserve. Hitler was the very opposite.

The other lesson of the history of more recent times, and I would ask the hon. member to comment on this, is that we actually did stop Saddam Hussein during the gulf war and he stayed stopped. He did not immediately do what Hitler did, which was to bring down the entire Nazi regime at any cost. It was destruction or victory. There were no choices. He had a sufficient regard for his own skin that deterrence has worked.

We have known about Saddam Hussein since the 1970s. The Americans back in the 1980s presumably knew about the same person. What new thing has happened? What new self-destructive urge has come over this man that he wishes to take on the mightiest country in the world and give up the palaces, the mistresses and all the other things we read about?

It seems to me that the hon. member has a problem with intention here. Is this the same kind of personality that is likely to bring us all to nuclear destruction?

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the member from the other side should listen to what Saddam Hussein has said in his own statements about where he is willing to go and where he will go.

The member mentioned that there are other countries in the world that have the same capabilities as Hussein does and asked what makes him more of a threat than any other country. Well Hussein has used these chemical weapons against his own people.

You want to compare and you say--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. I know we are a little rusty following the summer vacation but I just want to caution the House and remind everyone that all the interventions have to come through the Chair. It is quite helpful from time to time.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member on the other side likes to refer to the second world war and Hitler, and say that we did stop Hitler. It was at a very heavy cost because we refused to act sooner. He asked how we can compare Hitler and Saddam Hussein and chemical weapons. I guess the gassing of the Jewish people does not come into question here and how the chemicals were used then.

Maybe the member on the other side should brush up a little on his history if he was a history teacher. Those are the facts. It does not matter how much we want to try and change those facts. They are the facts and we cannot rewrite history no matter how much we may like to. It will not happen.

Saddam Hussein has shown that he is capable of using these weapons against his own people. There is Kuwait. There is an overwhelming abundance of evidence showing exactly what Saddam Hussein is capable of and has the will to do. Yet again the member will sit there and say that he will not.

My biggest fear is that Canada might get this fellow and bring him into our judicial system. Those guys over there would say that we could send him to jail and retrain him. My fear is he is likely to come out as a schoolteacher. Those are their thoughts. It does not matter how much killing someone does, they think that those people can be reintroduced into society. It will not happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to take part in this take note debate concerning the situation with regard to Iraq.

I recall taking part in a debate on this very subject shortly after I was first elected to the House by the voters of Scarborough--Agincourt back in 1988. At that time we had very clear evidence that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was underway and Iraq was acting in a manner that required a drastic response by the nations of the world.

At this time the situation is quite different. Indications from a wide variety of sources state that Iraq's military infrastructure has not recovered from the devastating punishment it suffered during the gulf war. The allegations by the American government that Iraq has been developing nuclear and biological weapons capable of mass destruction have not been substantiated by any valid sources. The latest allegation that somehow Iraq was behind the terrible events of September 11 is one that if even a causal link could be proven, it would be a major revelation to the world. We are being asked by the United States government as its next step in its war on terrorism to focus on the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, one of the three countries composing what Bush calls the axis of evil.

The United States is now trying to gather international support from its allies for a military attack on Iraq, claiming that this evil state harbours terrorists, secretly builds weapons of mass destruction, used weapons against its own people, misled United Nations weapons inspectors and engaged in wars of aggression and expansion.

President Bush called on the United Nations to prove its relevance and to act quickly to answer the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein. At home, the president is struggling to obtain unanimity in Washington, D.C., but he is confident that Congress will soon pass a resolution giving him authority to take military action against Iraq.

To date, the United States itself has failed to show how Iraq is linked to the al-Qaeda network, nor has it presented any evidence to support war. The United States has strongly endorsed the 55-page dossier on Iraq presented recently by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, which warned that Iraq is trying to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles that could reach Europe and its neighbours. Both the United States and Britain argue that this new evidence justifies a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.

The truth is that the President of the United States was elected by only 200 well placed votes in Florida. The United States is going into congressional and senate elections and needs an external evil to rally Republican voters to go to the polls. The Democrats in the United States have expressed these concerns, and if they dare challenge the President of the United States they are called unpatriotic. What irony. The same is practised by Saddam Hussein, who calls unpatriotic all his citizens who dare argue with him. He goes one step farther. He exterminates them.

Our government's position has been steadfast in its work to fight terrorism at home and abroad. Canada is greatly concerned about the policies pursued by the Government of Iraq, particularly with regard to human rights and weapons of mass destruction.

Canada agrees with the United Nations conclusion that weapons inspectors did not complete their work prior to their withdrawal in 1998. Their final report lists areas where questions remain concerning Iraq's disarmament. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was and is trying to develop weapons that he states are to defend his country, but they can be destructive to Iraq's neighbours as well as other countries around the world. However, the United Nations permanent members all have such weapons and are more destructive.

In the past few weeks I have had hundreds of contacts with my constituents with regard to Iraq, and the result has been almost unanimous: If there is no solid proof that Iraq has or is in production of weapons of mass destruction, then no unilateral action should be taken. Further, a large majority of my constituents believe that any action that may be deemed necessary can only take place under the control of the United Nations.

I would like to read aloud some of those comments.

Magdi Abdelmasih wrote:

We have to be confident if Iraq has any mass destruction weapons before we are involved in any action that may lead to catastrophe.

Peen Yuyitung wrote:

Canada should not commit to getting involved with an Iraq conflict, until facts from both sides are presented and reviewed.

Glenn McCullough stated:

In my opinion, Saddam Hussein is a madman and must be watched very carefully. That being said, the U.S. desire for regime change likely has something to do with their oil interests in the region.

Canada should listen carefully to U.S. intelligence and concerns regarding Iraq, but at the same time, we must work with the U.N. and proceed multilaterally with any military action. We must wait for the U.N. to assess the situation before supporting any U.S. military action.

Stephen Fan stated:

We should not get involved unless Canada is attacked by Iraq. Even if Iraq has chemical and biological weapons that is not a good enough reason to attack them. There are so many countries in the world who have chemical and biological weapons, does that mean we should attack these countries? If so, we should attack the U.S. first. The U.S. must change their foreign policy and stop their aggressive behaviour.

As hon. members can see from these comments, emotions in the country are running high. Overwhelmingly the response is that we must not support any unilateral attack on Iraq and must do what we can to encourage a peaceful end to the long suffering of the people of Iraq.

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

I have a comment first, Mr. Speaker, and then a couple of questions.

I think it is a perilous political road that my hon. friend is going down when he suggests something about the amount of the plurality or lack of it which President Bush enjoyed or did not enjoy related to the Florida election when in fact his own party knows what it is under its present Prime Minister to get elected with less than 40% of the support of Canadians. Does that mean it was illegitimate? That is a dangerous road to go down and he may want to address that since he raised it.

I am also trying to get some clarity on what constitutes evidence. We still have not figured out the Prime Minister's statement that a proof is a proof, and if it is a proof then it is a proof, if it is a proof, then it is a proof. We have not figured that one out.

With the outstanding amount of evidence that has been produced, as I said earlier, not just by U.S. intelligence agencies, but by Canada's, Great Britain's, Germany's and Israel's, the hon. gentleman still says it is not sufficient. What will constitute proof? Will he have to see Saddam Hussein standing with chemical weapons bubbling in his hands and then say “I think he has them”? What will constitute proof?

Finally, I will pose this question again. We cannot get a clear answer. I will say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been fairly clear and I appreciate that. We may not agree. He has also been present for the entire deliberations and we appreciate that, but I would like to put this question. Should Saddam Hussein defy the resolutions continually and break the present agreement related to weapons inspection, and should the security council not endorse some kind of action, will he recommend that Canada join the growing alliance of nations that have said they will take action? Or is he saying only unless Canada itself is attacked, because of course Canada was not attacked in the first world war directly, nor the second world war, nor in the Korean War, nor in the conflict in the gulf war, nor in Afghanistan, and yet we sent troops to all of them. Would he please tell us, as we have been clear in our position, what will be his advice to his minister should these conditions prevail?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite ironic that the hon. member did not take a lesson from the last election. People of the country overwhelmingly spoke clearly and sent 172 members of Parliament from the Liberal Party here right on the day of the election.

He claims that the Canadian public did not know what it was doing. The election was over by 10 o'clock. The votes were counted on the same day. The very next day we had a clear-cut majority, unlike that of the United States. The elections were over and they were still counting votes. Still to this day there is a question as to the counting of this vote. It depends on who we hear and what we pay attention to. Some people say that this person won or that person won. There is no absolute case here. The Canadian people spoke overwhelmingly in the last election. They knew what they were choosing. They sent a government of 172 members of Parliament and that hon. member unfortunately did not even pass the word go. He only ended up having his butt kicked.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I never heard the hon. member on the other side answer any of the questions put forward to him with regard to whether you will recommend to your minister to take action against Iraq only after Canada is attacked or after more overwhelming evidence is shown to you that Saddam Hussein is going to use or has the capability to use chemical weapons. I will ask you again if you are going to recommend only--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. I do not know how long it is going to take me but I will keep trying. I like what I do here and I do not want to be forgotten. I am sure the hon. member will continue to apply his best possible effort to recognize the Chair and make his interventions through the Chair. For today he may not get another chance to practise again. The hon. member for Scarborough--Agincourt on a short reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. member, which part of “you have to go through the member” do you not understand?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Let us try someone else.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this debate. It is an incredibly important issue. I heard some very disturbing comments which I will get in to in a few minutes.

I believe that we only should go after Saddam Hussein as a last resort, only after all diplomatic matters have failed. However I have to admit that I agree with the rest of my colleagues in my party, that we are approaching that point. If we are not there we are awfully close to it.

We have listened to the Iraqi regime, which has been up and down like a yo-yo. It makes commitments and then withdraws them. That is where there is no credibility. Of course we hear that it will allow inspectors in again. I spoke with the Minister of Foreign Affairs earlier. If Saddam is not on his last breath I do not know who is. I do not know how many more chances he can be given.

Nobody wants to send people to war. We recognize the great danger in which we would be putting the men and women of the Canadian military. It is a very serious issue. However Saddam Hussein continues to make a mockery of the United Nations and all people who support it and the resolution. He continues to laugh at them. I believe there is lots of evidence. I do not believe that countries like the United States and Great Britain are making stories up that there are weapons of mass destruction. I have not personally seen the evidence but I believe there is a lot of it out there. They are not engaging in a war just to have a war. That is ridiculous.

Canada is a sovereign nation. It is important that we are debating the issue in Parliament. It is a very serious matter and Canada will be making a decision on its own as a sovereign country.

Having said that, I want to comment on a few issues I have followed closely in the debate tonight. One of the most disturbing things I have heard tonight is the anti-American sentiment by so many members in the House. It is not just the comments of some members of the NDP like the member from Burnaby--Douglas. We would expect that from that member.

Even the last Liberal member who spoke, and I will use his words not mine, referred to the U.S. needing an external evil. He compared Bush to Hussein and talked about Hussein developing weapons to defend his country. He went on to talk about the United States having weapons too and that maybe we should bomb it first. That is troubling and I mean that sincerely.

Yes, I get frustrated with the U.S. on some of its trade policies. I live in British Columbia and we are going through a horrible time with the softwood lumber industry. It is incredibly frustrating for us but we cannot forget that the United States is a very important trading partner with Canada. It is also a very good friend of Canada and a very good ally.

I am not advocating following the U.S. We are a sovereign country. Canada can stand on its own. I wish it had more resources in its military, but it has done an admirable job with its very limited resources when it has been called upon in the international community.

I find the amount of anti-American sentiment in the Chamber, especially from government members, appalling. It is unbelievable to listen to them slam Bush and to suggest that he just wants to go to a war for his own election. They are doing it now as I speak. I say it with every sincerity that it is appalling that they would talk like that. I do not believe there is any basis for it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I was just reflecting how wonderful it was to have so many of you here this evening on either side of the Chamber at this late hour but with the few minutes remaining, I am sure the hon. minister and others would love to hear the end of this intervention and then at 12 o'clock we can all go home.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will go on to a few other points. I said that in all sincerity. I think the United States is a great friend of Canada, a great trading partner. We want to keep that relationship. Members should be mindful of their comments. Yes, we are a sovereign country and it is up to us to make that decision as to whether we get involved.

I personally believe that Saddam Hussein is on the shortest possible rope that anyone could possibly imagine. That crazy madman cannot be left to continue developing weapons of mass destruction.

I want to talk about a couple of other issues I heard throughout the debate tonight. We heard many members talk about the thousands of Iraqi children who are dying. Some of them went on to even blame this on the United States. That is ridiculous.

I remind all of those members that although Iraq continues to face sanctions, the UN has approved an oil for food program through which the Iraqi government generates $6 billion a year in revenue, which must be used for the purchase of food, medicine and other humanitarian aid.

As was recently reported in the Washington Post and many other international journals around the world, the non-profit group the Coalition for International Justice has released a study confirming that Iraq's government routinely subverts this program for its own purposes.

It is not Britain. It is not Germany. It is not the United States. It is Saddam Hussein who has murdered thousands and thousands of his own people for his own interests.

This year Saddam Hussein will divert over $2 billion away from his own people who are starving and need medicine and purely direct that money to the rebuilding of the military and paying off his potential rivals. There are other reports that he has over $1 billion from illegal oil sales.

This is a madman. This is Saddam Hussein. This is a man we have to take very seriously.

If we can avoid a war, we should do that. If enough pressure can be put by a combined coalition to actually force him to allow the weapons inspectors back in into areas that we have very serious concerns about, into some of Saddam Hussein's palaces where it is believed he is storing some of these weapons, if we can get in there to destroy those weapons, that is a very large if. If he actually complies this time and again we are very skeptical on his past record, then we should avoid this conflict. It has to be done under a UN sanction.

We cannot be naive and allow this man to absolutely have no respect for the international community, no respect for the United Nations. To continually make a mockery of them will be at our own peril.

This is a very important topic. I remind all members that we are a sovereign nation. Yes, this is a decision we should make. I would like members to remember that it is not the United States that caused this problem. We have heard so much anti-American sentiment. It is deeply disturbing. Saddam Hussein is a crazy madman who must be stopped. He cannot be given any more chances.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall I see the clock as 12 o'clock?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 12 midnight, pursuant to order made on Monday, September 30, 2002, the debate is now adjourned.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)