Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2002

Iraq

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the interventions from the member opposite. He brings a unique perspective from the other side. I especially appreciate his bringing into the debate his knowledge of the world and other countries. In that respect, perhaps he could help us out on two items and just add to the great information that has been tabled by all parties in this debate.

First, there are a number of other countries in the world with dictatorships or authoritarian governments that have biological, chemical or nuclear weapons or are trying to get them. If the member could give us any knowledge he has in the area, it would be helpful to all of us.

My second question is about the local countries in the area of Iraq. As the member said, we do not have to act right away. There are some countries within range of Saddam Hussein's new missiles that have not yet signed on to join the United States in such an attack. Does the member think there is a benefit in waiting? What would be the effects of going in too early on the peace and order of the countries around Iraq and on their relationships with us?

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. friend for the two questions.

On the first question regarding other countries that are looking to acquire biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, I am not aware of any at this time.

The second question deals with the local countries. He brings up a very important point. My view is that we do not have to invade Iraq tomorrow but maybe soon, after diplomatic initiatives have ended. While we are waiting, after we have drawn that line in the sand, we have to do what he suggests, which is to engage other Arab states and argue through the framework of regional security.

I would argue that Saddam Hussein has demonstrated that he has invaded Kuwait. He has shot off rockets and missiles to Riyadh. He has killed Kurds in northern Iraq. He has ordered mass killings of Marsh Arabs in Iraq. Based on this, it is clearly in the best interests of other Middle Eastern countries to support a multinational response to go in and identify and destroy weapons of mass destruction in the very near future.

I would also suggest and bring to the member's attention that Saudi Arabia is such a threat to regional security. We must not forget that within Saudi Arabia is wahhabism, the type of Islamic fundamentalism that Osama bin Laden follows. He and individuals responsible for the events of September 11 are Saudis. These people are there today and within them is a large pool of individuals who are potential terrorists. It really behooves us to deal with political and economic emancipation in Saudi Arabia for the benefit of regional security. In order to do that, we will need support from a number of Middle Eastern states, but we have to argue through their self-interests. I would argue that regional security and stability through dealing with Saudi Arabia and Saddam Hussein clearly is in their best interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his thoughtful remarks and associate myself with his views about the broader scope of security in the Middle East region and the very important question of Saudi Arabia.

Would he agree or disagree with those who argue that the removal and replacement of the current regime in Iraq would help to reorient that major central power in the Middle East to a democratic free market posture which would be friendly toward its neighbours and the west, and that it in fact would be a positive political force in the region for restraining some of the more destructive influences that exist in countries like Saudi Arabia? Would he not agree that a regime change in Iraq, should that be achieved in the future, would in fact benefit the entire region in terms of a direction--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my friend for the question.

With respect to Saudi Arabia, the real answer is regime modification within Saudi Arabia. There is a democratic free market system in Saudi Arabia, where there are 5,000 crown princes who have been milking the country dry, driving it into a debt situation and pocketing the moneys themselves.

It is interesting that we buy oil from Saudi Arabia and that money goes into the pockets of the 5,000 member elite in Saudi Arabia, which funds wahhabism and the madrossa schools that teach Islamic fundamentalism and the anti-American hatred that spawned the devastation one year ago on September 11. That is what is happening right now.

So we would deal with Saudi Arabia as an issue and we would love to have a democratic free market system in Iraq. That will be up to the Iraqi people. I hope we will give them the opportunity to have that choice.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with much emotion that I rise to take part in this emergency debate on Iraq, because I believe that no one in this House should take lightly the threat of military action against Iraq and the potential consequences of such action.

It seems obvious to me that Canada must speak out in this matter, against Saddam Hussein in particular, but also against the unilateralism of the U.S. authorities. It is clear in this connection that President Bush has already chosen the path that should eventually lead to his finding one way or another to get into a conflict with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. This is somewhat along the same lines as the Americans' decision not to sign the Kyoto protocol, or to refuse to allow the international criminal court to have jurisdiction over U.S. citizens.

It seems to me that, where these questions are concerned, Canada must make itself very clear. All of the decisions to be made in connection with Iraq must be made within a multilateral framework, and that framework cannot be other than the United Nations. Any regulatory process and anything to do with compliance with the resolutions adopted must be within that UN framework.

However, it seems obvious as well that we cannot, in a situation as critical as the one in Iraq and the Middle East as a whole, depend exclusively and solely on a government decision. The House of Commons and all of its members must be truly involved in this debate. In my opinion, this emergency debate is an important first step but not the only one. Debate must be followed by all the MPs being involved in reaching a decision at the end of the debate. Once again, we are calling for the House of Commons to be required to hold a vote before any Canadian military intervention in this conflict.

Yesterday, in New York City, the Prime Minister in my opinion was not taking the situation quite seriously enough by not waiting until the entire emergency debate was over before taking so clearly a stance on the position of the Americans and of British Prime Minister Tony Blair as well, announcing that Canada was behind the United States and Great Britain in their call for a resolution from the United Nations Security Council.

It seems to me that the Prime Minister should have waited until the debate was over—it took place last night, it is taking place tonight, and it will continue tomorrow night—before taking such a clear stand. I think that this created a great deal of confusion regarding the position of the Government of Canada, and undermines Canada's position on the world stage. We come across, I think, as a country that supports unconditionally any initiative that U.S. authorities will end up taking against Iraq.

Again, it is quite strange to see how U.S. officials are reacting to the changing situation, in particular to the presence of UN inspectors in Iraq. Yesterday, Iraq and the UN signed an agreement on the upcoming inspections in Iraq by UN inspectors to see if Iraq does indeed have weapons that could constitute a threat to security for the whole world or for the Middle East.

So what should have been viewed by U.S. officials as a step toward a peaceful resolution of the situation was instead seen by a number of observers of the political scene as a failure. This is extremely worrisome.

How can U.S. officials view the fact that Iraq and the UN have reached an agreement on the provisions for UN inspectors in Iraq as a failure, or an obstacle?

It seems to me that this news that the United Nations inspectors will be able to visit the sites, without any conditions, within 15 days, to see if there are any weapons on the sites, should be met with calls for pressure on Iraq, Saddam Hussein in particular, to ensure that the new agreement is carried out.

Obviously, we must not be naive. We are well aware that a certain number of the UN resolutions have not been complied with by Saddam Hussein, much as other countries have not complied with UN resolutions. Take Israel, for example, which again recently, refused to comply with a Security Council decision.

It would seem to me that developments in the last few hours should have, to the contrary, reduced American pressure for a possible military initiative. However, it would appear as though U.S. officials, and the U.S. president, are disappointed by the fact that the UN and Iraq reached an agreement on UN weapons inspectors in Iraq.

This is what has me very worried and it is why I am saying that, one way or another, the U.S. president seems to have already decided on the outcome of this crisis and, for him, armed conflict seems to be the only possible choice.

In this context, it seems to me that Canada, the Canadian Prime Minister, should have been much clearer and reserved its support for the resolution demanded by the Americans and the British until the end of this take-note debate.

I therefore repeat the Bloc Quebecois' request that, before any intervention by Canada in a possible conflict with Iraq, which nobody wants, there be another debate and vote in this House. No action in this crisis must be taken lightly. We must be very aware of one thing and that is that a deep divide has been created between the west and the Muslim world, particularly after the tragic events of September 11.

Any rash action in Iraq at this time would only make matters worse, particularly in a context where there is no sign of a solution in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. It is still hard for me today to understand why the U.S. Congress decided to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, contrary to the wishes of the international community.

Once again, we get the impression that American authorities—and I do say “American authorities” because I do not believe that most Americans support President Bush's strategy at this time, and that a good number of American representatives, and the American Congress also have differing opinions—have an attitude that will end up further provoking the Muslim world.

It is clear, and I reiterate the fact that we must put more pressure on Saddam Hussein; we must put pressure on Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions, particularly, as I was saying, when it comes to the most recent agreement that was reached yesterday between the United Nations and Iraq regarding the inspection of sites in Iraq. This agreement must be fully respected.

I believe that Canada must be clear: without the explicit approval of the Security Council, there is no possibility that Canada will support any U.S. military intervention in Iraq. Canada must support the efforts of the United Nations to reach a peaceful resolution to the conflict. This, for the greater good of Quebeckers, Canadians and obviously, the people of Iraq.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would at least agree with my hon. colleague's call for a debate and a vote in this place on any potential action, should it be required, before it takes place. I would agree with his party on that point. However, I would like to make a comment and then ask a question.

He said that the American government and the president were provoking the Muslim world currently. I think that is a little irresponsible, particularly when we look at the fact that President Bush is the first American president to publicly and consistently call for a free and independent Palestinian state, and to indicate his support for that objective, alongside a secure and democratic Israel within recognized boundaries.

Further, the United States and its coalition allies, such as Canada, have intervened at significant cost to support the Muslim people from the tyranny of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and liberated them to their great delight. The west and the United States in particular made tremendous sacrifices in defending the Muslim population of Kosovo from the attacks of the Serbian army. The Americans intervened, at significant cost, in Somalia to protect the Muslim population from a chaotic environment, and so on. Indeed, in Iraq what we seek to do is the same--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. member for Joliette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member could not ask his question.

My impression is that there is a deep anti-American feeling in the world right now. I regret it, because I believe that the American people is a great people, but we must take note of this reality, whether it is in Europe, Asia, Africa or Latin America—we can actually see this in Brazil's presidential campaign.

The Americans do not realize that right now—and I am not saying that this is necessarily the reality—a large part of the world feels that they want to dominate the world, without assuming the responsibilities that come with this status. They want the whole world to look like the United States, but they do not want the United States to look like the whole world.

As regards Iraq, I believe that the U.S. president and a number of U.S. representatives are headed in the wrong direction if they think that they will promote the cause of democracy by provoking Saddam Hussein. On the contrary, they are building the foundations of a new terrorist coalition.

We must be extremely careful with this issue and we must examine all the variables. I feel that the Americans, and particularly British Prime Minister Tony Blair, are taking the consequences of an armed conflict in the Middle East involving Iraq lightly.

Again, I agree with all the members of this House tthat Saddam Hussein is a dictator who deserves to be overthrown. But in my opinion, the consequences of any armed conflict must be weighed carefully.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in tonight's debate on the situation in Iraq. I have listened closely to the thoughtful debate that has progressed thus far.

There is no doubt this is a complex topic. As a Canadian parliamentarian with a healthy respect for democracy as well as human rights, Saddam Hussein's regime is as unimaginable to me as it is deplorable. There is no doubt that through the Iraqi dictator's penchant for war and weaponry he has become an undisputed global menace.

The Iraqi administration has an indefensible record. It has engaged in warfare against its neighbours. It has sponsored and sheltered terrorists. It has developed weapons of mass destruction and it has used these weapons on its own people. The Iraqi regime has consistently and repeatedly defied the authority of the United Nations Security Council.

UN inspectors did not have the opportunity to complete their work prior to their withdrawal in 1998. By all accounts, Saddam Hussein's regime has been developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. It is widely believed that the regime will soon have the capacity to build crude nuclear weapons. Iraq's dictator has a deplorable record of oppressing and violating the citizens of Iraq.

Clearly, Saddam Hussein poses a certain and rising threat to global security. There is no question, he must be disarmed. If diplomatic means are unsuccessful, military methods must be employed but these must be employed as a last resort.

How does Canada respond to this threat? What is our role and what are our responsibilities?

In my constituency of Kitchener Centre, residents are troubled by these unsettling times. The threat of terrorism is not new but it has never before been more relevant than it is today. The city I have the privilege of representing is shaped by immigrants from all parts of the globe and that includes citizens formerly from Iraq. To many of them, Canada is the ideal. Canada is a just society that holds promises of democracy, human rights, peace and freedom. I am proud of Canada's rich history as a member of this global community.

Canada's response to the situation in Iraq must be reflective of the fundamental Canadian foreign policy. Canada has a long-standing, unwavering commitment to promoting human security, including human rights, peacekeeping, humanitarianism and disarmament.

Multilateral cooperation is critical. Canada must continue to work with our allies and the United Nations to ensure the safety and security of Canadians and to ensure that the rule of international law is respected as well as enforced. Canada has a long history of helping to solve global problems and we will secure our place in North America and the world as a mature and confident country.

Canada has been steadfast in our efforts to right terrorism at home and abroad alongside our friend and ally the United States. Canada has consistently supported the U.S. attempts to contain Iraq. Canada has supported UNSCOM, the UN special commission charged with ensuring that Saddam was stripped of all weapons of mass destruction.

Throughout the past decade, Canadians have worked inside Iraq under the UN to gather information on Saddam's alleged nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs.

Further, Canada has a long tradition of being counted in when western values are challenged, from both world wars to Korea, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

At the same time, Canada does not endorse a pre-emptive strike against Iraq by the United States without the approval of the United Nations.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the United Nations can be a great force for good in the world and it is in all our interests to use the power of international institutions in this complex world.

A strong, clear resolution on Iraq, through the United Nations Security Council, provides the desired option for peaceful, legitimate resolution to the situation in Iraq. Of course we welcome Iraq's announcement to accept, albeit conditional, the return of the UN's weapons inspectors. However, in spite of the small concession, we are unconvinced that Iraq will adopt a new course of cooperation.

Iraq has a long history of obstruction and failures to comply with Security Council resolutions. The government has stressed its willingness to back firm enforcement of the new United Nations Security Council resolution. The resolution must require Iraq to accept full and unfettered weapons inspection and set out consequences for failure to do so.

This is Saddam Hussein's opportunity to comply with his international obligations. We cannot compromise the integrity and the credibility of the United Nations in favour of unilateral action. The risk is simply too great.

Canadians are proud of our longstanding tradition in foreign policy which has been to pursue and promote dialogue and understanding among the peoples of the world and to seek political and diplomatic solutions, even in the face of imminent conflict.

By continuing to act consistently with those values, world peace and security will be enhanced and international institutions strengthened. The Canadian goal is shared throughout the international community to rid the Iraq regime of weapons of mass destruction. Military action must not be the first course of action.

The rightful role of government is the protection of human rights. The United Nations provides an appropriate arena in which Canada can join our allies and ensure the protection and preservation of our freedom as well as world security.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speeches of last night and tonight. First, I want to compliment the member and her speech in that I did not hear nearly as much anti-American sentiments as I did in a few speeches prior to hers from that side of the House. I compliment her on that.

I want to inform the member that during the last part of the summer I spent some time down in the United States, where I have lots of relatives. I went to a bluegrass concert. There is nothing like good old gospel bluegrass to get one in the mood for getting ready to come back to the House of Commons when the summer ends.

I had an opportunity to talk to a number of Americans from different parts of the country who were there to enjoy the same event. I asked them the specific question of how they felt about their President and what he was saying in regard to Iraq. The sentiment expressed to me in a broad sense from many of them, and by many others, was that the Americans were not prepared to ever put up with another the September 11 and that they were fully behind their President in whatever action was necessary to make absolutely certain that it was prevented.

They were disgusted when they learned that some of the reports that came out prior to September 11 gave strong indications of a serious problem but they were ignored. They were going to sit and wait until it happened.

Saddam Hussein has given every indication possible to this side of the world that we had better beware. Pre-emptive strikes are a sad thing. However the Americans have said loud and clear that if the actions that this crazy man might take are pre-empted and if it prevents another September 11 and saves the lives of millions of people, they are fully behind their President.

I get very disturbed when I hear a number of Canadians say, as this member has said, “We do not support a pre-emptive strike.” Would the hon. member rather Saddam strike first? Is that what they want? They cannot give any--

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague sensed the fact that I am looking for solutions rather than problems.

Clearly September 11 showed all of us that terrorism knows no boundaries and there are no walls that we can build high enough or strong enough. It is something which we have to deal with, in partnership with the rest of the world. The United States itself acknowledged that need was there after September 11.

In the context of the United Nations and the Security Council looking for a resolution and due process, I would point out to my hon. colleague that one of the tools of terrorism throughout the world, other than just chemical weapons of mass destruction, is corruption.

A colleague in the member's own caucus was talking about the 10 richest families getting rich while people suffered. We have to deal with the rule of law and we have to protect human rights. That is something that needs to be done in an international context and we have the United Nations Security Council in which to do it.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke so well. She was questioned by the member from the opposition. He and other members of his party have shown support for the ability of one nation to decide when, where and against whom it should launch a pre-emptive attack. Would she care to comment on whether there is a precedent to be set that might be somewhat fearful in an international forum usually based on the rule of law?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for that thoughtful question. Clearly I believe that terrorism and the rule of law is something that needs to be dealt with in the international scene. We have the United Nations and the United Nations Security Council to do that.

I know my hon. colleague and myself, as well as many colleagues on the other side, have had the opportunity to deal in international conferences representing Canada. I think back to this past month when I was in Namibia at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference and heard Canada being held out as a model in looking for international involvement and in countries looking for leadership. This can only happen in the context of a multilateral event.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for putting forth this opportunity to speak on this very important debate.

I believe it is important to remind Canadians of the tremendous role the men and women of our military play when it comes to the implementation of our nation's foreign policy. It is my privilege to represent the soldiers stationed at CFB Petawawa. The presence of this significant base in my riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke has given me a special insight into the challenges that the soldiers face as they are called upon to do the many tasks that the government sets forth. This is an opportunity that I would like to share with other members of the House in a meaningful way.

The decisions we make in the House impact the lives of those individuals who are in the service of our country. It is important not to lose sight of that fact the next time the government decides to make an international commitment without the necessary resources to go along with that commitment.

Our position regarding Iraq must be put in the context of the events of September 11, 2001. There was no mercy given in the calculated, cold-blooded act of murder that day. The deliberate massacre of innocent civilians means we have to take more than just a token stand against the perpetrators. It is necessary to not only track down the perpetrators of that spineless act, but it is also necessary to track down those nations that support and defend international terrorism.

As a nation we suffered a tremendous drop in credibility as a consequence of the Prime Minister who carefully chose of all days the one year anniversary date of the terrorist atrocity in New York to blame the victims for that cowardly attack. As the Prime Minister has smeared all Americans with his blame the victims speech, all Canadians will suffer from a deteriorating relationship with our largest trading partner.

People in my riding find it incredible that he would slur the American people on one hand, yet pursue a policy of unilateral disarmament on the other hand which effectively contracts out our defence to the Pentagon. If there is any doubt regarding the move to contract out the defence of Canada, one only needs to look at the supply chain proposal being considered by the government right now.

By contracting out the military supply chain to a foreign multinational, the Liberal Party is surrendering a vital element of Canadian sovereignty. The minister's officials have already admitted that there will be no cost savings to Canadians, and in fact by all accounts it will end up costing taxpayers more money. My only hope is that the government will come to its senses, do the right thing, take the off ramp and buy Canadian.

The increasingly erratic and inexplicable behaviour of the Prime Minister and those with whom he has surrounded himself has given rise to many unflattering and accurate portrayals, mostly by members of his own party. They are describing the Prime Minister as one whose best before date expired a long time ago. So is the case with Saddam Hussein, another leader whose best before date expired a long time ago.

Where the Prime Minister and Saddam Hussein differ is that the Liberal Party has been pursuing a policy of neglect of Canada's military whereas Saddam Hussein has been steadily building up a great war machine, the showpieces of which are weapons of mass destruction. Chemical, biological and in short order nuclear weapons will all be used without the slightest bit of apprehension by this tyrant. After 11 years of unheeded UN resolutions, it is clear that Saddam is insincere when it comes to eliminating his weapons of destruction.

If the world were dealing with a rational human being, this debate would not be occurring. What we are dealing with is a fanatic and a regime that refuses to be reasonable. It is in this context that prominent Canadians have come together to tell the government the time has come to rebuild our military. The presence of a well paid, well equipped modern military does not mean that Canadians are a warmongering people. We are not a warlike people.

However, we must take more than a token stand if we wish as a nation to keep a place among other western democratic nations and preserve our foreign affairs policy as a sovereign issue.

If members will pardon the expression, it is time the government put its money where its mouth is when it comes to Canada's military. Members of the Prime Minister's own party have been lamenting the democratic deficit which is the decline of our democratic system of government since this party took office. We see in Saddam Hussein what can happen when a democratic deficit is left unchecked.

Every member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, of which I have been a member, has called for an increase in military spending. Yet even with the budgetary crisis in Canada's military, the Prime Minister forced the Department of National Defence to spend $100 million from its budget to buy luxury jets for him and his party members to fly around on.

Imagine how people in Renfrew County feel when they read in the local newspaper that 4,000 children in the county live in poverty and they see that the lobbyist for the jet company would have been paid close to a million dollars for getting the government to buy those jets.

Voters in my riding and across the country see this hypocrisy in these types of government decisions and on our stand on Iraq. The democratic deficit and the steady deterioration of Canada's military are no coincidence. As the political will to sustain a credible military presence in Canada does not exist, so also is the decision by the government to purposely under-represent, if not underestimate, the threat that is posed by the corrupt regime of Saddam Hussein.

The Canadian Forces are a mirror of Canadian society. If the government is serious about restoring participatory democracy in Canada, so too must it be serious about reviving the institutions we depend on to defend our way of life. This is true in our own country and it is true in the international community. Given the choice Canadians prefer to stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends and allies such as Great Britain, Australia and the United States rather than sympathizing with corrupt regimes such as Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Saddam in Iraq.

The case against Saddam Hussein is detailed and compelling. He has defied 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. He has started two wars of aggression against neighbouring Iran and Kuwait. He has used chemical weapons against his own people. He fired ballistic missiles at Jewish civilians and tried to assassinate a former President of the United States.

The evidence released by the British government of Saddam's ready-to-use chemical and biological weapons and the fact that he has the know-how to build nuclear weapons should he decide to use them could easily destabilize an area of the world that is already wrought with tension. Should any of these weapons be used in addition to the horrific loss of life, they may create an environmental catastrophe of monumental proportions. Saddam Hussein has had a long history of human rights abuses that include mass arrests, torture, rape, genocide and summary executions. For over a decade he has defied the UN resolutions.

Now the credibility of the UN is being called into question. The UN puts more emphasis on Canadian duck hunters being disarmed than disarming a mass murdering maniac. While I am pleased that the foreign affairs minister has adopted the Canadian Alliance position of making it certain that there must be consequences to Saddam's actions and defiance of UN resolutions, I must ask the government the same question I asked at the foreign affairs committee two weeks ago. What is Canada's threshold of tolerance to the defiance? Is it a matter of time? Is it a deadline? How many months or years will we put up with it or is it a matter of direct assault on North America?

The government did not answer my question two weeks ago but I hope that we get an answer today and I hope the answer is yes. The evidence is clear whom we should be supporting in this conflict. Canada's poor relations with our largest trading partner will take some time to heal. Taking a clear and unequivocal stand in the war against international terrorism will be a good step.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Yukon I have received a number of e-mails from constituents saying that they do not want Canada to go to war at this time with Iraq. We have heard during this debate a number of members from Ontario who have said that a vast majority of their e-mail from their constituents is taking that position at this time.

I am curious about the Alliance members, but this member from the Alliance in particular because her riding is in Ontario. What does the member tell her constituents who have written to her, e-mailed her, phoned her or met her on the street, who do not want Canada, for various reasons brought forward in this debate I assume, to engage in military action at this time?

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

Mr. Speaker, by and large the people who have contacted my office and talked to me do not want to send our men and women to war. They feel the right thing to do is to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States, our protector. Our military has disintegrated to the point where we are heavily dependent upon the United States for our defence. For that reason they feel there should be some reciprocity on our part.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the question posed by the member on the other side of the floor to the member who just spoke. I would like to add that in my constituency, as I travelled around, I found more and more that people had little confidence in the United Nations. It seems that Hussein has had a way of pushing the Security Council, the top end of the UN, 16 times, and nobody has done anything about it.

Has the hon. member also heard the same concerns with regard to the UN having no teeth? That seems to be the major concern that I heard from the public.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, I have heard that. In fact a letter today crossed my desk requesting that Canada pull out of the UN because it seems to be just a figure head organization.

That is not the policy of our party but it does reflect what is going on in the minds of Canadians. The fact that not only 16 resolutions have gone unheeded but there have been over 30 statements that the UN has put forth on the issue of Iraq as well. Unless there is a mechanism put in place to ensure that the resolutions will be enforced, the credibility of the UN will be called into question.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, nobody wants to go to war. Nobody wants war. That is a given. I have a son who is in the United States army stationed in Germany. He has been spending the last few days with his unit preparing for deployment when necessary and ready to do it.

What we are talking about here is the very thing that we have talked about for many years, starting with Winston Churchill who begged the Europeans during pre-World War II that something had to be done about the Nazi regime. He was called a warmonger and a fearmonger. He was called every name in the book. His name could have been Bush at that time. Had they listened to Winston Churchill things would have been a whole lot different than as they turned out.

What we are saying is for Pete's sake, the same kind of evidence is before us. Do not be blinded by the rhetoric of let us wait, let us give it a chance. The man is insane. He has said what he would like to do. He has proven what he is capable of doing. He has to be stopped and if that is the choice that is made, then Canada had better be there to defend the very freedoms that we enjoy today.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this take note debate on the international situation in Iraq because I do not see this as a fighting controversy between one side or the other. There is room for us as parliamentarians to sit together to have some thoughtful discussion, to look at the facts, and to examine the consequences both short and long term.

What do we know? We know that the United States claims that Iraq is one of the three countries of the axis of evil. We know that the United States claims that Iraq harbours terrorists; that it is secretly building weapons of mass destruction, chemical, nuclear and biological; that it has misled United Nations inspectors in the past; that it engaged in wars of aggression and expansion; and, finally, that it is linked to September 11. Let us examine this.

To date in terms of the claim of harbouring terrorists and being linked to September 11, the United States has not given us any proof at all that Iraq has been linked to al-Qaeda. That is the first thing we must ask ourselves.

Second, it has claimed that Iraq is building secret weapons of mass destruction. Inspectors over the last seven years have said that indeed Iraq had been doing that. We should be concerned that an emotionally volatile dictator in a country like Iraq would have those weapons. We have also seen those weapons used in the 1980s against the Kurds and, of course, against Iran. We know there is proof this has happened in the past.

Have we been misled by the United Nations inspectors? Has Iraq misled them? Well, we all agree in Canada that in fact in 1998 the United Nations inspectors said that they did not believe they had been able to finish that job appropriately.

Finally, has Iraq been engaged in wars of aggression or expansion? We know that it has. This is the crux of the issue. Are we still being misled by Iraq? Does it still have these weapons of mass destruction? If so, how close is it to using them and does this present a real and imminent danger to us?

To date neither the United Nations nor the United Kingdom has been able to come up with any new or conclusive evidence that there exists in Iraq a state of immediate danger and crisis that would warrant a pre-emptive strike. That is a question I would like to ask.

We cannot use war as a first weapon in any armoury we have in any way, shape or form when we are dealing with conflict. War must always be a last resort.

What do we need to do? We need to find proof that Iraq is indeed amassing these weapons, that it is close to using them and that this presents an immediate danger. Talks have recently finished in Europe that said that Iraq would allow the United Nations to come in unconditionally and immediately to inspect.

This is an important thing that we should do, because we cannot afford to start a war on the basis of assumption only. What are the consequences of a pre-emptive strike based solely on assumption or on the will of one nation, even though we believe that nation may have valid reasons for being fearful or for having a vendetta?

What is the precedent we set if we allow one nation to make that decision based on assumption? The precedent would be that India could say that it believes Pakistan is going to come and attack it tomorrow and make a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. Pakistan could say the same thing about India. We could have China saying this about its neighbours. We could have Russia saying it, moving into Georgia making pre-emptive strikes. We would have set a precedent that says that any one nation, based on what may seem to be a rational fear or real reason can go on a pre-emptive strike.

In the past we have heard a lot of people speak about Winston Churchill, the second world war and the things we need to be afraid of. We are all aware that with 20/20 vision we can look back at the second world war. It was as a result of that 20/20 vision that an international body was put in place so that all nations around the world could share information, could watch-dog each other, could keep a check on each other, and could ensure that they were behaving honestly and that they did not allow any one nation to become a pre-emptive invasive force. We are there to check each other. That is what the United Nations is about.

Some people have said that if we allow the United Nations to go ahead and perform the way it was meant to perform following the second world war, then it would have no teeth. Of course the United Nations will have no teeth. We, the members of the United Nations, must give it teeth and the only way we can give it teeth is to allow it to perform the way it was meant to perform. If we keep second-guessing and pre-empting it, the United Nations will never become a strong body and be able to deal with exactly what it was meant to deal with following the second world war.

I also believe that if we do not follow the rule of law and allow for all nations to come together and decide that there is, to quote the novelist, “a clear and present danger”, then we will continue to set a precedent for any one nation to do exactly what happened in our last major wars, the first and second world wars. We need to be completely aware of the chicken and egg syndrome of war.

In my estimation, war has never seemed to really solve anything. War has always led to more conflict. War breeds war and, in today's world, war breeds terrorism. We can crush one nation and pre-empt it but it will seek its vendetta tomorrow. The people who watch their families die will become terrorists and will seek to continue the war in the new world of war, which is terrorism.

Will we be able to stop anything by suddenly jumping into war ourselves? What are the long term consequences: more and more terrorism? Have we looked at that? What do we need to do?

People have accused the Liberals by saying that we are scaredy-cats, that we are afraid. Canadians never need to hold their heads in shame with regard to their performance in war. Canadian soldiers fought valiantly. The courage of Canadian soldiers, in the face of all odds at Vimy, stands out loud and clear for anyone who thinks of Canadian soldiers. Canadians can show that we can go to war, that we can perform and that we can shine and punch well above our weight when we go to war.

However we learned some other things following the second world war. With the United Nations and with people like Lester Pearson, we learned to find ways of dealing with conflict or of finding other alternatives to conflict. Canada has now gained a name for itself around the world of being a country that has supported international rule of law, the United Nations and multilateral instruments. We must continue to make that happen. We must continue to allow multilateral decisions to be made. We must continue to allow ourselves to watchdog each other.

We have seen that even this nation, which seeks to go to war with Iraq, is very scared and wants to be left out of the international criminal court. It wants to be given an exemption. Why? No one should be exempt. We must all be wary of each other. We must all watchdog each other and support each other.

If I recall Henry V , it says “Cry havoc and let fly the dogs of war”. We must be careful how we let loose the dogs of war. We must be very careful that those dogs do not unleash consequences for which we are not ready. We must be very careful that when we do go to war it is for a cause that we are sure of and that it is, indeed, something that will end the problems that we are seeking to alleviate. I want us to think of that.

We will do what we must do as Canadians. We have always done that in the past and we will continue to do that. We will go to war if we must and we will support our allies if we must but we also have another reputation to guard: our ability to look at international instruments, such as the United Nations and the rule of law, and then decide what our next step must be.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I agree with the hon. member that multilateral action is preferable to unilateral action and that while war is not desirable and it has many deleterious consequences, I must take the strongest exception to the member's assertion that war “never solves anything” and that war “does nothing but breed war.”

I submit to my hon. colleague that for the Jews, who were rescued from the death camps in Nazi Germany in 1945, the war solved something for them, namely the salvation of their lives. Without our participation in that war, a war which began because an international organization called the League of Nations refused, after years and years of warnings, to take action. Sixty million people lost their lives in that conflict because action was not taken by an international agency.

I would like the member to comment on the following. Her own government, and presumably she, supported an active war against Iraq in 1998 through the United States and United Kingdom air force bombings of Iraq without specific authorization of a UN Security Council resolution and did so in order to try to enforce the 16 outstanding UN Security Council resolutions vis-à-vis Iraq.

Further, her government supported, with the explicit veto of the UN Security Council, NATO acts of war against the government of Serbia in order to protect the innocent civilians of Kosovo. This was another instance where regrettably war is sometimes necessary to protect lives, to protect the innocent and to maintain order against unjust aggressors.

Will she not agree with me, at least in principle, that sometimes war is necessary to save the innocent and, further, that her own government has supported acts of war even in the last five years, including one against Iraq, without the specific authorization of the United Nations Security Council?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have said that war breeds other things as well. However war does indeed solve problems when there is clear evidence and proof that there is danger.

Obviously we saw what happened to the Jews in the second world war. There was a need to go in there because we were fighting against something that we were absolutely certain was going on.

In the war against Iraq we knew that Iraq was attacking the Kurds. We saw clear evidence of them using chemical weapons in the eighties against the Kurds and the Iranians. We had clear evidence that something was going on.

What I am saying is that when we go to war based on an assumption only, we do not solve a problem, we create one. What I am saying is that we should wait until we know whether there is a clear and imminent danger and a crisis that we must alleviate and only then should we go to war. It should not be as a first act but as an act of final resort when everything else has failed.

We need to protect and defend ourselves and the world against aggression. Obviously we have to go to war at that time. I am not saying we can never go to war. I am just saying that it should be an act of last resort.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the hon. member that the UN has failed in Iraq, 16 times as a matter of fact.

After listening to the member's speech it seems that she has shown only the United States evidence. I beg to differ. Evidence has been gathered, not only by United States intelligence but also from British, Australian and even Canadian intelligence. She should perhaps read the Canadian CSIS report with regard to the probability of Saddam Hussein having these weapons. That report was done by her own government organization.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I have said is that there is no evidence of a new and imminent threat. Iraq has been building these weapons. Do we know whether it has disarmed or not? It has said that it has. We need to find proof that it has. That is why we need unconditional and immediate inspection by the United Nations with Canada playing a major role. We know Canadians have very highly trained technological teams that are capable of finding biological and chemical weapons. Let us do that. Let us first find the proof that we need to go to war.