Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2002

Iraq

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate, in particular in my capacity as spokesman for the official opposition on Canada-U.S. relations, which are much at play in the issue that the House considers this evening.

I rise today to urge the House and the government to support the strongest action possible in ensuring that Saddam Hussein's regime is fully disarmed of weapons of mass destruction and their components, and rendered incapable of threatening the region or supporting terrorism in the future.

Full disarmament is the goal we should be seeking as a country. Neither the official opposition nor the American or British governments are seeking war, contrary to some of the comments we heard in this place last night. Rather, we are seeking the dismantling of Saddam's deadly arsenal so that the world's most terrible leaders are no longer able to threaten us with the world's most terrible weapons. Disarmament, not war, is our goal and should be the goal of the civilized world.

Given what we know about Saddam Hussein and his past behaviour, we must be realists enough to recognize that, regrettably, military force may well ultimately be a necessary step to achieving disarmament. Inspections under an adequate mandate will not be sufficient to ensure full disarmament and full compliance with the 1991 ceasefire. The goal is not to have Hans Blix and his bureaucrats spend a few weeks in Baghdad hotels or to ensure that Russian and French egos are not bruised at the Security Council.

Rather, the goal, and about this we must be absolutely clear, is and should be to ensure that Saddam is never in a position to hold Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraqi Kurds or Shiites or for that matter American and Canadian citizens in Europe and North America through terrorist networks, or anybody else, hostage with the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Real disarmament, not a half-baked compromised inspection program, is and must be the goal of the government and the United Nations.

Some members of the House have asked, sometimes in a spirit of honest questioning and sometimes in a sophomoric reactionary anti-American spirit, “Why the focus on Saddam Hussein and Iraq?” They raise of course the fact that he is not the only brutal dictator afoot in the world today. North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Libya and other countries have governments which routinely abuse human rights. Of course that is true.

Indeed all five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with countries such as India and Pakistan, perhaps including North Korea and Iran, possess nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction or may be capable of acquiring them.

However, Saddam Hussein is unique in the world in running a brutal and dictatorial regime which either has or is actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction and has demonstrated the willingness to use them. Furthermore, Iraq is a known sponsor of global terrorism. It is subsidizing, as we speak, Palestinian suicide bombers who kill innocent Israeli civilians to the tune of $25,000 a piece. It has trained al-Qaeda operatives in manufacturing and using chemical weapons, not to mention the fact that the Czech intelligence service has demonstrated that Mohammed Atta, the ring leader of the September 11 attacks, met with a senior Iraqi official in Prague last year.

As long as the Iraqi regime persists with its weapons program, we do not know when one morning we may wake up to the reality of sarin gas in the New York subway, anthrax spores in postal stations somewhere in the western world, or indeed a dirty nuclear bomb being detonated in the streets of Tel Aviv.

After September 11 of last year, it is unconscionable to allow this threat to persist. Brutal regimes which not only possess or pursue weapons of mass destruction but have shown a willingness to consider their use cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. This should be beyond debate. The only question, a question on which reasonable people can certainly disagree, should be how to pursue the end of disarming the dangerous and deadly Iraqi regime. There is room for disagreement about the details, for example, about the balance between the need for an effective, credible threat of force and the importance of a broad-based multilateral coalition, or about whether there should be one United Nations resolution or two.

For the most part, after some weak and wobbly talk in August and September of this year, what we have heard in the last 48 hours from the Prime Minister and the foreign and defence ministers has been a responsible engagement about how best to address the Iraqi threat.

Unfortunately there are still some in the Liberal Party who are not engaged in this kind of responsible debate but are engaged in irresponsible rhetoric that puts the President of the United States and Saddam Hussein on an equal moral footing. We heard this last night. The member for Brampton West--Mississauga quoted people from the fevered swamps of the far left in the United States such as Ramsey Clark and Robert Fisk.

Many speakers asserted that President Bush's concern about the regime in Baghdad, an issue he has raised repeatedly, starting with the state of the union speech in January, was simply about mid-term elections. The member for Scarborough--Agincourt compared the president's tactics to Saddam Hussein, saying:

The United States is going into congressional and senate elections and needs an external evil to rally Republican voters to go to the polls...What irony. The same [method] is practised by Saddam Hussein...

The member for Oakville, a committee chair, went one step further, comparing George Bush to the Nazi regime in Germany when she said:

When we moved in World War II as Allies, we were moving against the idea of one nation aggressively invading and taking over another. This is exactly what George Bush is now proposing.

Comparing the American willingness to lead an international coalition of democratic forces to enforce United Nations resolutions against one of the world's most brutal dictatorships to the aggression of Adolf Hitler, I submit, is totally irresponsible engagement in this debate.

She also ridiculed the intervention in Afghanistan when she cynically said:

...it was supposed to be a war against terrorism, it turned out to be bombing Afghanistan and its innocent civilians. He was really after terrorists who were born in Saudi Arabia, but he would not think of bombing Saudi Arabia because that might destroy his cheap supply of oil.

I find it hard to believe that anybody can think the world would be better off if the Taliban were still denying women the right to go to school and Osama bin Laden was still plotting terror attacks in the Afghan mountains. I suggest that this member has disgraced the Canadians who participated in the action in Afghanistan. This kind of anti-American hostility is irresponsible coming from members of a governing party of a NATO nation and a G-7 member.

Many members in this debate have suggested that there is no evidence of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. I do not know what evidence they need to persuade them apart from what has been presented in the public forum.

I have in my hands the dossier presented to the British parliament on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It is the assessment of the British government compiled by the joint intelligence committee of the three intelligence branches of the United Kingdom government, of a labour government, a party historically hostile to the foreign policy of the United States. Their main conclusions are:

Iraq has a usable chemical and biological weapons capability, in breach of UNSCR 687, which has included recent production of chemical and biological agents;

Saddam continues to attach great importance to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles which he regards as being the basis for Iraq's regional power. He is determined to retain these capabilities;

Iraq can deliver chemical and biological agents using an extensive range of artillery shells, free-fall bombs, sprayers and ballistic missiles;

Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons, in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and in breach of UNSCR 687. Uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq;

Iraq possesses extended-range versions of the SCUD ballistic missile in breach of UNSCR 687 which are capable of reaching Cyprus, Eastern Turkey, Tehran and Israel. It is also developing longer-range ballistic missiles;

Iraq's current military planning specifically envisages the use of chemical and biological weapons;

Iraq has learnt lessons from previous UN weapons inspections and is already taking steps to conceal and disperse sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return of inspectors.

If the civilized world does not take firm action, preferably multilateral action, and the UN does not work, it fails the challenge and demonstrates that it has become another talking shop like the League of Nations, unwilling and incapable of challenging dictators of this nature, then we must join the growing number of allies in taking action lest this dangerous dictator possess weapons which can hold the free world hostage.

Let us not give Saddam Hussein the opportunity to develop a nuclear warhead that he can attach to a Scud missile and, for instance, make good on his word to destroy half of Israel, which he promised to do in 1991. I submit that we must be prepared to act in a multilateral fashion with our allies if and when necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the hon. member from across the House. I have one question for the member. Does his party or would his party support unilateral action on behalf of the United States with regard to Saddam Hussein?

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

Mr. Speaker, we no more support what she characterizes as unilateral action on the part of the United States than the government supported military action against Iraq for its non-compliance in 1998 without a specific authorizing UN resolution.

We maintain exactly the same position that the government maintained in 1998, which is that the terms of the ceasefire in 1991, and the many United Nations resolutions since then, authorized responsible members of the United Nations to take military action. That was the position of her government in 1998 and remains the position of the official opposition today.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short non-partisan question just for clarification.

At the present time and with the present facts is there any difference between the Canadian Alliance position and the position of the United States?

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

Mr. Speaker, our position was arrived at independently, much like that of the Labour Party of the United Kingdom or the Liberal Party of Australia. I do not know if it is identical to that of the United States. I think it is probably different in some respects. We perhaps place more emphasis on necessity, on the desirability of achieving a resolution of the Security Council and multilateral action.

However, at the end of the day we agree with our responsible allies in the Labour Party of Britain, the Liberal Party of Australia and other democracies across the world, that responsible democracies must stand up for the integrity of international law if the United Nations system fails to do so itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Calgary Southeast was here last night when I asked the member for Oakville a question, which he referenced in his speech. I asked her a plain, simple question: Does she believe that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are evil, yes or no?

It was a simple question but an important question because every once in a while people do emerge on the international stage where it is crystal clear that we must rally around a moral principle. This has happened time and time again in world history.

The hon. member could not summon the will to say that Osama bin Laden was evil. In fact, she said that Osama bin Laden was a terrible inconvenience, was offensive to us on September 11, to paraphrase her quote. She said that he was offensive and inconvenienced us last year.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the idea that a member of the Liberal Party cannot stand up and clearly say, with certainty, that Osama bin Laden is an evil person in the entire ethic of morality and foreign policy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague makes an important point, that in dealing with matters such as this we must have moral clarity. We must not be blinded by the myth of moral equivalence. We must not see tyrants, like Saddam Hussein, as somehow equivalent to democratic leaders, like George Bush, or indeed violent terrorists like Osama bin Laden, in anything but the truest terms.

Yes, of course, the actions, the intentions and the philosophy of Osama bin Laden is a dark, evil, twisted misanthropy against humanity and western civilization in particular.

It is very important that the government understand the nature of that. I am not sure it does given the Prime Minister's remarks, which suggested that the terrorism on September 11 was somehow connected to socio-economic inequities in the world rather than categories of moral evil, which clearly were an inspiration in the acts of September 11.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, what bothers me is that he demonstrates absolutely no self-respect as a Canadian. I would think that the man from Calgary would stand up and exhibit some pride in Canada and instead of being a clone of Americans and a clone of their policy, that he would want some independent thought from Canadian policy-makers. No, just throw our lot in completely with the Americans.

I listened closely to the hon. gentleman from Calgary Southeast and not once did he ever mention the word consequence as the result of an invasion of Iraq.

Reasonable thinking people will conclude that there will be terrible consequences from a military action in Iraq but not once did that member mention the word consequence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the hon. member questioning my pride as a Canadian. I have had ancestors fight for this country in every one of its armed conflicts since the American Revolution on the side of the Crown.

What I am most proud about this country is that when the time calls it is unafraid to step up to its responsibilities, as it has done every time in the last century. We may be called upon to do so again.

What I am least proud about in this government is its refusal to accept that proud tradition of willingness to stand with our democratic allies. There is no shame in doing that. There is no shame in standing with our friends in the United Kingdom and the United States for the principles that make this country great.

In terms of consequences, of course there will be consequences. Some of them tragic but many of them will be great if the people of Iraq are liberated from this dangerous dictator. The consequence, I submit, will be of stability and opportunity for a people who have too long been oppressed. The hon. member should consider that consequence.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one would wish to make light of the unacceptable conditions now prevailing in Iraq under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. This is a secret and autocratic regime which is brutalizing its Kurdish minority and is responsible for multiple executions, a regime which refuses to observe international ethics and bow to the entirely legitimate resolutions of the United Nations.

It is clear that Iraq and Saddam Hussein must immediately comply with the recent UN directives that it allow not just the entry but the complete freedom of action of accredited UN inspectors to examine the Iraqi infrastructure of illegal chemical, nuclear and other weapons.

There was a consensus to this effect in the UN security council. It is certainly Canada's position. Where the consensus breaks down, however, is around the insistence of the United States, with the backing of Great Britain, to look for any excuse for a so-called pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

The constant and systematic statements by President Bush and his associates on the White House staff leave no doubt as to the president's fierce determination to wage war on Iraq at any cost. Yesterday, at a press conference, his press secretary, Ari Fleischer, even went so far as to publicly suggest that Saddam Hussein be assassinated. In any form it takes, he said.

Without in any way supporting what is going on in Iraq, if wars were necessary every time UN resolutions were ignored, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, or every time human rights and freedoms were trampled by one dictatorial regime or another—President Mugabe's or someone else's—it would be necessary to wage war on many more countries than just Iraq.

If it were necessary to selectively assassinate every autocratic leader who did not suit us, we would be looking at much more than just one assassination.

The United States and its allies rightly call for Iraq to open itself without delay and, without excuses or subterfuge, to complete and total arms inspections.

At the most recent meeting in Vienna between Iraqi officials and the UN arms inspection team, the chief UN arms inspector, Dr. Hans Blix, advised that Iraq had accepted to permit inspectors into its territory within two weeks from now.

However, suspicions against Iraq run very deep within the free world, suspicions that Iraq will once again subvert the UN process and turn its back on the latest UN resolutions. Therefore the Security Council nations rightly insist on the strictest observance of the resolutions. They insist that Iraq should comply completely and let the UN establish the incontrovertible proof that it is not resorting to building an arsenal of mass destruction, this being the only condition for lifting the sanctions imposed on Iraq through Security Council resolution No. 687 of 1991 as well as subsequent Security Council resolution No. 1284. This position was made quite clear last night by our Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Now that the resolve of Security Council members, backed by a large body of free world opinion, including our country, is in place to force Iraq to comply with transparent inspections, surely the wise and only decision at this point is to let this first phase of the process prove or disprove itself.

To talk of pre-emptive or other types of military strikes at this stage is not only premature and ill-advised, but it is to ignore the tremendous calamity that war always visits on innocent people. War must be and always must be the very ultimate option when all possible means of diplomatic and other means of settlement have been exhausted.

I read Senator Kennedy's words in the current debate in the U.S. Senate. With courage, he spoke eloquently about the fact that war must be the ultimate resort and answer, that all possible means of settlement must be exhausted first. To speak in that fashion in the U.S. Senate in the climate of the U.S. administration today shows courage. I hope that senators on all sides of the political divide in the United States will echo his words.

I must admit very frankly that I find the triumvirate of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld scary and frightening for world peace. They give the impression of a war happy trio, anxious to pull the trigger at all costs, looking for the excuse and the self-justification to let the B-52 bombers and the small bombs loose.

President Bush gives the impression of someone involved on a personal vendetta, on a crusade, determined no matter what the odds to complete the task left uncompleted by his presidential father. Somehow this has become a Bush fixation: Let us fire the torpedos and somehow the world will be a better and safer place, immediately Iraq is military defeated and Saddam Hussein disappears from the scene. It is the magic of war; it will solve all our world problems overnight.

The international community, including Canada, must resist at all costs going beyond the strict reach and resolutions of the Security Council and treat the Iraqi crisis with the firmest resolve, of course, but also with wisdom and caution.

Canada has an important role to play as a neighbour and closest historical ally of the United States. After all, we have shown decisive leadership on many key international issues where the United States has taken a completely different stand from our own. Let me mention in passing key international issues and agreements, such as the international criminal code, in which we led the way and where the United States has been looking for escape hatches; the anti-personnel landmine convention, again led by us and which the Americans refused to join; the biodiversity convention of the United Nations, again led by us at Rio and which the United States decided not to sign; and more recently the Kyoto protocol.

The evidence is increasingly present of a unilateral stance in the United States administration, which is to decide that what is good and safe and worthy for the United States is good and safe and worthy for the whole world, no matter what the judgment of the rest of the world may be. Perhaps this became evident when President Bush unilaterally withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty or was the first important signatory to withdraw from and denounce the Kyoto protocol.

Lest I be misunderstood, I have nothing but revulsion for dictatorships and brutality, as practised by Saddam Hussein, or Mugabe or anybody else. I understand and sympathize deeply and warmly with the American people over the terrorist acts that claimed American lives so savagely last year. However despite all this, I remain convinced that war is an instrument of destruction and killing and that war causes untold savagery on innocent people with consequences that we cannot foresee in advance.

It was one thing to go to war to defend human liberties on a world scale when Hitler attacked or the Japanese attacked. However this is a far different question, where a small country can certainly listen and be told that it must comply with United Nations resolutions.

War in this case must definitely be an ultimate weapon and I hope that we will continue our resolve to persuade the United States and Great Britain to exercise the greatest caution and wisdom before using B-52 bombers and small bombs, which obviously will kill innocent people.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the hon. member's comments. I think everyone in the House would agree that we want to try to avoid war at all costs. He has eloquently said that. He is also concerned, as many are, for the livelihoods of the Iraqis in Iraq.

Obviously, I can speak a little bit to that because my family escaped persecution from a radical regime in Uganda. My heart goes out to other countries in the world where people have to face that sort of persecution. We were lucky we could come to a country like Canada, which defends freedom around the world, at least in the past, and make our home here.

One thing was a little disturbing to me in recent comments by the government in trying to deal with this issue. We in the opposition have been calling for, as the government has, involvement of the UN and the arm's agents to go back into Iraq to do an unfettered job. Hopefully, they will be able to do so. We have not been calling for military action at all yet and we say that is a last resort as well.

Recently the defence minister, from what I understand, has said that Canada would be willing to deploy troops in military action into Iraq. We have to walk before we run. The government is getting ahead of itself, especially in trying to exercise diplomatic involvement in the region. Perhaps the member can explain how the government has moved to this complete opposite direction when before it had almost no position on the particular issue.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the position of the government is unequivocal. The Prime Minister has stated it time and again. The foreign affairs minister, who is obviously responsible for our external position in the United Nations and elsewhere, said last night and previously that Canada viewed the United Nations resolutions as sacrosanct. Iraq must comply. If it does not comply with the inspections or the inspections find it to be deficient in its compliance, then it will go back to the United Nations for further resolution.

This is the position of the government. It has been quite clear. The defence minister might have said that in theory if we were called to eventually use military force, then ultimately our forces would be there. However, I think this was very much a theoretical position.

The position of Canada is quite clear. We are not for war. We believe war is an ultimate resort. We want to exhaust all avenues at the United Nations over settlement with Iraq. The foreign affairs minister has said that he has rejoiced in his meeting with the Iraqi foreign minister recently that Iraq has accepted UN inspection teams on its soil and more recently that it will accept UN inspection within two weeks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his remarks. He always brings to this debate and to the House a great deal of experience and a great deal of perspective. I personally would feel very comfortable if he was in the position to be at the table in negotiations as serious as this. He has been commended by other members for his positions in the past. I believe he makes an enormous contribution.

My question is in reference to the issue of the compilation of the weapons, the fears that need to be allayed and the evidence that must be presented to address the issue of the amassing of weapons of mass destruction. We know, and there is evidence available, that suggests that the Iraqis have amassed al-Hussein missiles and that they have been in possession them for some time. Certainly there is reference to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that have some capacity, perhaps a capacity to reach allies that are in closer proximity than any in North America. This concern has to be met by having some assurances that the information itself is accurate.

Could the hon. member bring any insight to that and whether there should be a time limit on this, and not a time limit that would be provocative?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the premises brought forward by my colleague are quite correct. There should be a thorough inspection. After all, the U.N. inspection team is composed of perhaps the foremost experts in arms inspection and weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons. The inspections should be thorough.

There should be a reasonable time line at which point the whole issue would be reported back to the United Nations Security Council for review. I really believe that there should be a firm inspection team and a deadline.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I am not going to use the standard formula with which we generally start our speech, about being pleased to take part in this debate. I believe there is no more difficult prospect for a Parliament or a government than to be forced to envision the possibility of shedding the blood of its sons and daughters. It is not, therefore, a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate, but I am taking part in it because I feel the matter is one of critical importance.

Yesterday, I was greatly surprised at what was being said by the ministers of foreign affairs and defence. Their contributions to the debate seemed to be singularly out of line with the positions expressed by the great majority of the members of this Parliament, with the exception of course of the representatives of the official opposition. My impression, listening to the debates yesterday, was that the sound of marching boots was beginning to resound within these walls. I had the impression that we were slowly heading along the path toward war.

Let me make myself perfectly clear. I would like to state loud and clear right off that no lover of peace, democracy and the respect of human rights can feel an ounce of sympathy for the regime of Saddam Hussein. His is a regime that has never hesitated to eliminate or imprison its opponents, that has never hesitated to use chemical warfare against its own civilian populations, at Al-Basrah for instance. It is a government that has never hesitated to adopt a warlike stance with its neighbours.

I would also like to make it clear from the start that it would be a bad thing to adopt a position of facile, blind and complacent pacifism. We merely need to remember where this desire to achieve peace at any price took Europe after the Munich accords. I also want to emphasize the importance the Bloc Quebecois attaches to the special relationship between Canada and its powerful neighbour, the U.S. The U.S. is our main trading partner and our main ally. We have proven this friendship on numerous occasions in the past.

In the wake of the tragic events of September 11 last year, we did not hesitate to join the coalition, to send troops to Afghanistan, to risk the lives of our sons and daughters because we felt that that was the right thing to do. In this regard, it is appropriate to have some questions and to be concerned about how reciprocal this friendship with the Americans is when we see the completely unacceptable attitude of our powerful neighbours in something like the softwood lumber dispute, for instance.

That being said, I do not want anyone interpreting my point of view as being vilely and stupidly anti-American, to use the cheap rhetoric of our Alliance friends. It is not, and I say so loud and clear.

Yesterday, and again this evening, the debate here in the House, and I would say throughout the world, focussed on this fundamental question. Are there or are there not weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Is the Iraqi government stockpiling, producing and developing weapons of mass destruction? Obviously, opinions differ.

According to Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, there is a significant volume of weapons of mass destruction. According to Scott Ritter, who led the UN team of inspectors from 1991 to 1997, that is not the case. So, there are conflicting views.

Allow me to relate a story. An official from the Department of Foreign Affairs, who wishes to remain anonymous, made a comment to me. He said, “Listen, there is no better indicator of the presence in the region of so-called weapons of mass destruction than the reaction of the state of Israel to the presence of such weapons”.

When Israeli intelligence services, which, as we know, are the best in the world, concluded, based on their information, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Pakistan, Israel did not hesitate to unilaterally send bombers to destroy these facilities.

According to this spokesperson from the Department of Foreign Affairs, the fact that Israel is not going after Iraq is a good indication that there are not, or at least not to the extent that some would have us believe, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Yesterday, some views were expressed regarding a kind of double standard among the international community regarding Iraq's attitude toward the resolutions passed by the community.

Some suggested that the international community should be as harsh and as strict in ensuring that other states, specifically Israel, comply with UN resolutions. It was pointed out repeatedly that Saddam Hussein and his regime are getting away with violating 16 UN resolutions. However, let us not forget that Israel is getting away with violating some 28 UN resolutions, but the U.S. government or the Canadian Alliance do not seem overly concerned about that.

I was told, “It is not appropriate to compare the two situations. It is not at all the same thing. Israel is one of our most precious allies—it is a democratic state”. Fine, but we have a duty to be even more demanding toward our friends when we feel that they are on the path to delinquency.

Perhaps it is true that it is not appropriate to draw a parallel between Israel and Iraq. However, Tony Blair himself, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, whom our Canadian Alliance friends have been quoting over the past two days, drew such a parallel between Israel and Iraq and said that the international community should ensure that UN resolutions are complied with in the whole region.

It is hardly surprising that the government of Iraq is suspicious about letting the United Nations inspectors back in. However, despite this suspicion, Iraq accepted to comply with the resolution that was passed by the security council. This is no small feat.

The debate that began yesterday and that continues today seems to take into account the fact that, yesterday, the United Nations and Iraqi authorities reached an agreement under which the government of Iraq authorized the presence of United Nations inspectors on its territory, apparently granting immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

We should not be surprised about this suspicion, since Scott Ritter, who led the inspectors, and Rolf Ekeus, who was also one of the inspectors' leaders, acknowledged openly that the UN inspection mission in Iraq had an espionage role.

It is hardly surprising then that the Iraqi authorities were concerned. Despite this, they agreed, which is quite something, and we need to take that into account.

In closing, as the hon. Herb Gray said during the debate on the gulf war in 1990, this House must hold a vote before any of our troops are deployed to fight on Iraqi soil.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

The member made some very good points. One in particular that he spoke of is the attitude that exists around this issue around the world. He spoke of the need to stand with friends in times of trouble, but also to stand with friends in telling them when a mistake might be made. I totally agree with that sentiment. His insight is very important at this time. Although we need to be sure about the evidence, we need to be there, of course relying very much on the information that is available, but looking to the United Nations as a source of stability and a rock solid source of information.

My question for the hon. member relates specifically to the role that Canada can play. Where I think he was headed with his remarks is that Canada can be a more interventionist player in terms of mediation at the United Nations and in terms of influencing American policy toward their attitudes. They are living in a different atmosphere. We were affected by what happened on September 11, but clearly no country was affected to the extent that the United States was affected.

Does my friend believe that we could be more active in seeking out solutions with the Americans and at the table with the UN?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his question. I believe that, in the very wording of his question, he has given the answer, or at least a pointer to the arguments I would now like to raise in response to his question.

Yes, I believe Canada can play a role as a mediator. It can be an impartial go-between. Let us bear in mind that, in the midst of the Gulf War, Canada was one of the few countries, if not the only one, involved in the coalition with which Iraq decided to maintain diplomatic relations. Canada is a valuable player, in the eyes of Iraq as much as of the U.S. or the U.K.

Consequently, I return to the motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade two weeks ago. It read:

That the Committee recommend to the Government that it examine any steps it might take in support of the Security Council, including offering our diplomatic services to the Secretary General--

Canada can play a role in this conflict, through its influence on its powerful neighbour, the U.S. In my opinion, instead of committing ourselves to war without having exhausted all of our diplomatic efforts, we should indeed see what could be done on the diplomatic level, before even considering a solution that would involve the shedding of our sons' and daughters' blood.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the fact that Israel has failed to comply with certain UN resolutions, which is true, but we should also note that the Palestinians have failed to comply with many of these resolutions as well. We should be fair and accurate on that.

I was a little concerned about his equation and his comparison of the democratic state of Israel with the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I would ask him to clarify whether he is drawing equity or making a moral equivalence between those two regimes. I was in Israel this year for the first time and I was certainly impressed by the type of democratic society Israel has.

Finally, if Saddam Hussein is developing or has developed weapons of mass destruction, or if it can be proven that he is on the path to developing them, what should Canada's response be at that time?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I do not know whether he was in the House when I began my speech. I said clearly and unequivocally that we cannot have any sympathy at all for the criminal regime of Saddam Hussein, and that no comparison can be made between Saddam Hussein's regime and the Israeli democratic system.

This being said, it must be recognized that the state of Israel is illegally occupying foreign territories. The situation that prevails in the occupied territories is not compatible with a democratic state, and that is not acceptable.

As to what should be Canada's reaction—and I will conclude with this—if it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that weapons of mass destruction are being produced and stored in Iraq and that this country refused to comply with the UN resolutions, then, and only then should military action be considered. However, the whole process should be conducted under the aegis of the United Nations, following a vote in the House.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not planning to speak in this debate but I was inspired to speak tonight by the statement made late last evening by the member for Cumberland--Colchester, a member incidentally not of my own party. He said anytime we talk about taking an action that will result in somebody's death, we need to have a sober second thought. I wanted to comment on that perspective.

A few years ago Shimon Peres, the current foreign affairs minister for the Israeli government, former prime minister of Israel and former minister of national defence, spoke at the Canada-Israel committee dinner and I will badly massacre the words of a very eloquent spokesperson. In essence he said that for generations we have sent our children, our young men and women off to war to die. “I have done it,” he said, “and we have to stop doing it”.

War has changed. It has become sanitized and remote. We can launch bombs from thousands of miles away by the press of a button on a helicopter. We never have to face the reality of the pictures we saw of the second world war and of what it means to be involved in hostilities.

I went back and reviewed what I said in January 1991 when our country had just joined the United States and others in Iraq in desert storm. I want to quote part of what I said:

Does the 24-hour TV docudrama we have witnessed...show us any of this reality? Have we seen one dead child? Have we seen one drop of blood? Do we know how many people have died? Have we been allowed to see the reality of this war? No.

What we have seen is sanitized science fiction, Star Trek with bright lights flashing off into the universe. The Enterprise goes off into the darkness, sparkling explosions filling the sky...but obscuring the reality of thousands of living beings, breathing in a living city. People quiver in fear.

As we deliberate what Canada's role should be in dealing with the situation in Iraq, we have to remember the consequences. As war has changed, the victims of war have also changed. It used to be that 90% of the casualties of war were people in the military on both sides. That has changed dramatically. The casualties of war now are 90% civilians, 80% of whom are women and children. As we talk objectively and rationally here in this chamber let us remember that dead women and children are the potential consequences of our actions.

I cannot help but be concerned about what a terrible precedent we set if we buy into the argument that it is alright for one government to decide to take out the government of another sovereign country, no matter how terrible that government may be. What is the next government a country in this world may not like and may decide to take out? To talk about essentially assassinating the leader of another country no matter how evil we consider him, no matter what destruction we feel he may rain, can we really accept that as a reasonable, rational reaction in a supposedly civilized world by supposedly civilized countries and leaders of democratic states? I do not think so.

We cannot afford to buy into that argument and legitimize the right of a nation in this world no matter how close an ally, no matter how close a friend, no matter how important a trading partner, to say, “I and I alone will decide that a government does not deserve to continue in existence”.

I want to refer to something else I said because here we are 11 years later dealing with the same situation. We are dealing with the fact that there is a country which we believe has weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical and nuclear, capable of wreaking terrible damage on other people in other countries. In 11 years we still have not addressed where those weapons came from.

Where did Iraq get them from? How did it manage to build these stockpiles? We know the Soviet Union, the U.S.S.R. at the time, was regretting that missiles made in the U.S.S.R. were being used against Israel in the course of the gulf war.

As I said at the time, what is the country of origin of the droplets of nerve gas that may strangle the children? What is the country of origin of the biological warfare that may be unleashed on allied forces and innocent civilians? Who are the nations that have armed the madmen of the world? Who are the governments that have based their economies on weapons and technologies of destruction and death, where every year their economies prosper on a new toy of war and markets have to be found for last year's model? Who are the merchants of death who do not care where their products end up as long as their dividends are up?

We are facing the same situation we faced 11 years ago because we still have not dealt with the answers to those questions. Saddam Hussein is supplied by countries outside, by countries we call civilized, with the components of what now is such a threat to all of us.

There is a lot of discussion about what are the real motives. I believe Canada has a very important role to play. We are not seen as having motives of dominance or control or wanting to secure our own supply of energy or wanting to complete a task started 11 years ago and not completed at the time. We have a role to stand apart to assist to the ultimate to seek other solutions. Our role is to do our best through the United Nations, through inspections to ensure that if it is the weapons of mass destruction we are concerned about that they are rooted out and destroyed. We must ensure that that is our objective, not the destruction of a particularly heinous leader, or a state or a government and not the securing of our own selfish interests or those of our allies.

I have talked about the perils of war and about considering the huge consequences of the kinds of decisions we make about the terrible things that will happen to other people while sitting here in nice comfortable surroundings. Yet in the last half of the 1930s we also learned the perils of sitting back and doing nothing as evil and the threat to democracy and the threat to human life around the globe grew to the point where it dominated the world for six years. We have to balance that. We have to consider the consequences of inaction as well.

However, let us not just take action without considering the very real consequences for tens of thousands of people of the actions we take. Also let us examine our own motives.

Let us examine if we are prepared to take the same action against every country in the world that is amassing weapons of mass destruction. Think where that would take us before we decide where we are going on this.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague across the way. I appreciated her passionate, heartfelt speech this evening. It is one of the first lengthy speeches I have heard her give although I know she has an important role in a different capacity.

I would like to ask the hon. member this. If Saddam Hussein has amassed weapons of mass destruction and this is proven to be the case, would she agree that there could in fact then be a loss of life in neighbouring countries, those within that circle around Iraq, or a loss of life abroad through biological and nuclear warfare? I think the member alluded to it. In fact maybe there is considerable loss of life continuing to go on in that country, as it has in the past with respect to the Kurds in the north or the liquidating of his own family members, those kinds of things, and the continued suffering and loss of life of people in that country. I would like a response in terms of loss of life on the other side of the equation, as alluded to by the member.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, well over a decade ago a wonderful woman named Helen Caldicott made a video about nuclear weapons in which she pointed out that there already exist enough weapons in the world to destroy the entire globe 14 times over. Iraq is not the only country that has weapons of mass destruction. Virtually any country of any wealth is capable of wreaking what the member referred to and of destroying life in countries surrounding it.

I think we have to ask how far we are going to carry this. Are we going to take action to make sure the Americans get rid of their nuclear weapons, that China does, that India does, that Pakistan does? If not, why not? Why Iraq?

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Because it has crazy people in charge.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Yes, and we also have other countries that abuse human rights or massacre their own citizens.

Saddam Hussein has used these weapons against his own people. We all know that. My objective here is, and I think our objective as a globe should be, that we are getting rid of those weapons of mass destruction if and where they exist in that country. That is our objective.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on her eloquent speech. She is very convincing, and speaks with conviction when it comes to the importance of peace and respecting human life. The member for Ottawa West—Nepean has once again demonstrated that ultimately—for reasons that are beyond me—women seem to be more sensitive to the importance of peace and the negative impact of war. Indeed, she spoke specifically about the loss of human life, of women and children. This is the fundamental criterion that we must consider.

I would like to ask her if she is of mind that the American support for a new UN resolution is a way of feeding the conflict, rather than simply allowing the inspectors to do their work, as is the case with the agreement that currently exists between Iraq and the United Nations? Could we not circumvent the American hawkish approach by allowing the inspectors to play out their role, so that we can see if Iraq will in fact allow them to do their job? If, in the end, things turn out badly, then we will cross that bridge when we get there. Do we not hurt the chances of achieving peace by having a new resolution passed before the inspectors have carried out their work?