Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2002

Iraq

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House and Canadians on the situation in Iraq, the conflicting positions of various nations of the world, as well as my own feelings on our own country's position in response to this grave and serious question.

Canada has not only a responsibility but an obligation to join this world debate. We must speak calmly and independently on such matters as war, peace, and other impacts on the global community. We are neighbours and friends of the United States and friends with the United Kingdom as well, and as such we must, as good friends do, give our best advice even though it may not possibly be what they want to hear.

The United Nations was established following the second world war as a forum, as a tool in the new world order to deal with aggression within our globe. Admittedly, article 51 of the UN charter allows a country to defend itself from aggression, but does this concept include the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against a protagonist? After some deliberation I will respond in the cautious affirmative, but this position must be founded on irrefutable evidence and the highest possible justification.

Has this test been met in the current situation? Does Iraq have nuclear weapons? Is there evidence of an intent to use such against other nations? There is no confirmation in this regard. Is it justification for an attack? I would suggest it is not.

Can Saddam on the other hand be trusted? He reneged on his promise to let the UN destroy his weapons of mass destruction in exchange for a gulf war ceasefire. He has disregarded 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions. He claims that Iraq is weapon free, yet rejects unfettered inspection. What does he have to hide?

He has manufactured anthrax and gas, using such in a murderous incident against the Kurds as well as against Iran. He is a despot who has tortured and poisoned his own people and fired missiles on Israeli citizens. There are indeed some chemical and biological weapons unaccounted for after the gulf war. Hussein says that he is a threat to no one. I suggest Hussein is a potential threat to everyone. I for one have no trust in Saddam Hussein.

On the other hand I disagree with those American leaders who would espouse unilateral conflicts and pre-emptive strikes anywhere and anytime. I disagree with the premise that the United States can assume the role of judge, jury and executioner with impunity. This is against the rule of law. This is more than troubling; it is in fact terrifying.

I implore the Bush administration to consider the following before further consideration of a launch of what some would consider an unprovoked assault on a hostile regime. What will the perception and reaction be of the 150 million Muslims throughout the world to see western nations enforcing this will on a small but potentially lethal Muslim country? Will it inflame them, and if so, what consequences will follow? Will this hinder or detract from the war on terrorism? Will it give sympathy to the al-Qaeda? Will it isolate the moderates in the Middle and Far East nations and feed the extremists? Will it be a prolonged war? Will it destabilize other countries in the region and could this war spread to them as well? What would be the economic and social damage to this region?

These are questions that cannot be ignored, especially in light of a questionable, clear and imminent danger to the safety and security of the United States or other nations. If the weapons inspectors are given clear and unfettered access to Iraq, they will in fact confirm or refute this.

I would support the efforts of the United States and Britain that would obtain a strong and clear resolution from the Security Council of the United Nations to provide Iraq with a final opportunity to comply with the UN's inspections and very directly, the consequences in default of so doing. It is imperative that they do so. It is imperative that they must not act unilaterally. As our Minister of Foreign Affairs has stated:

We must not lose sight of the absolute need to make Saddam Hussein understand the choices he faces. He can comply and have Iraq's sovereignty and security assured by the community of nations. Or he can continue to flout his international legal obligations and face the inevitable consequence.

In default of compliance, a multilateral intervention against Iraq must be considered. Every effort must be made to explore all options to avoid the outbreak of hostilities, but there, nonetheless, must be resolve to act if necessary.

Interestingly, this week Iraq agreed to allow the quick return of United Nations weapons inspectors to that country. This had been suspended for four years. This is a positive step and a first step. It is not a final step. The flaw however is that it is based on the terms of a 1998 ruling that exempted from inspectors the so-called presidential palaces which represent an area of approximately 32 square kilometres containing roughly 1,500 buildings.

When we consider that devastating biological or chemical weapons can be produced in the space of a few large rooms, such exemptions cannot be entertained. The inspectors must be allowed into these compounds. Every nook and cranny must be examined and any weaponry discovered must be destroyed. Inspections must be unfettered and as some have said, there must be no wiggle room.

Let there be no mistake in the graveness of this situation and of joining in a possible conflict. Canadian participation in hostilities will not only put our well trained and courageous armed forces in peril in the theatre of war, but the general populace could be at risk as well. Retaliation against Canada and Canadians could be a real possibility.

We may no longer be able to watch falling Scud missiles on CNN from the safety and security of our living rooms without fear of direct risk in our towns and cities. The development and proliferation of weapons of biological and chemical warfare and the horrific reality of 9/11 only serve to emphasize the potential for Canadian soil to become a battleground as well. This is a sobering thought.

Canada has a long and proud history of peacekeeping. We are a nation that promotes dialogue and understanding, compromise and diplomacy. I make these remarks this evening in this vein. We hope, indeed we pray, that such efforts in the Iraq situation will avert military action and all that may follow from it.

If there is to be military action, let it be a United Nations action, but let all the world know that the United States is our friend and ally. I make these comments tonight in a constructive way to this friend. Let all the world know that Canada will stand at home and abroad with all nations against terrorists and terrorism.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to be able to take part in this debate. Recently, one of the reasons that my constituents stop to talk to me, even while doing my groceries, has been to tell me “Mrs. Tremblay, we hope that you will not support a war, and that the government will not send our soldiers to Iraq, that the government of the member for Saint-Maurice will do everything within its power to prevent the president of the United States from declaring war”.

It is an issue that is worrying Canadians and Quebeckers, because when you get right down to it, if we were to do a poll, we would see that a large segment of the population would ask us to do everything in our power to ensure, as much as possible, peace in the world.

In this day and age, we have every means at our disposal: well-developed diplomatic structures, means of communication, means to train humans to be more understanding of different cultures and religions, which makes up what we call our civilization. We have so many tools at our disposal now to be able to benefit more from what we are doing right now.

As we speak, the Security Council is probably still meeting. Today, we learned that the United States and Great Britain have utterly rejected the agreement reached between the UN and Iraq on the return of inspectors to that country. Washington asked the negotiator, Mr. Blix, to delay his departure for Iraq.

I am under the impression that the President of the United States is using every possible means to get what he has wanted since the beginning: to go to war. Every time an agreement is reached between Iraq and the UN, he will come up with an additional requirement.

The United States and Great Britain insist that the UN Security Council must adopt a much more strongly worded resolution than the first one before inspectors can travel to Iraq.

The United States has proposed a draft resolution. This draft resolution was submitted to the Security Council and it seems that it really lacks clarity. It provides, among other things:

That the inspectors will have to have access to presidential sites in Iraq.

At first glance, this requirement by the United States to have access to all sites, including presidential sites, does not appear to be too compelling for Iraq. As we know, the Americans have been asking for this from the beginning. The fact that they insist on having access to these sites does not appear, in and of itself, to be an unreasonable demand. However, this requirement was not part of the initial demand that led to the agreements reached in Vienna by the UN and Iraq. This would be a new demand and, if the Security Council agreed to it, negotiations would have to resume between the UN and Iraq. The UN representative would have to go back to Vienna and resume negotiating to try to get Iraq to agree to this new concession.

Another demand that appeared in the last resolution presented to the Security Souncil, the draft resolution presented by the United States, was for inspectors to be accompanied by American soldiers.

This demand by Mr. Bush is completely unacceptable. Unacceptable for Iraq, of course. It is well known that what brought an end to the work of the inspectors in Iraq was the espionage done for the CIA, which damaged the impartial reputation of the inspectors who were in Iraq. To again seek to put them under the control of American soldiers is to doom to failure any work the inspectors might do. I think that this would lack transparency and might plunge us back into the same situation as before, with the new inspectors again working for the CIA. They would be much busier with espionage than with the inspecting they are being asked to do.

The important thing is that inspectors maintain their autonomy, so that they can be under the aegis of the United Nations. They must not represent their country of origin, but be detached from it and put under the protection, as it were, of the United Nations. This seems to meet with the approval of all the various countries.

There is also talk of any failure on the part of Iraq to implement the agreement they have just agreed to and provide full cooperation constituting a new flagrant violation. Such a violation would authorize member states to take all necessary means to restore peace. This wording would help decide whether Iraq was cooperating to their satisfaction and would give carte blanche for an armed intervention, without again involving the UN.

This last point from what we know to be the draft resolution before the Security Council is completely unacceptable to us. This must not be based on a judgment call. My colleague, who spoke before me, stated it very well. We cannot allow the United States to be both judge and jury, responsible for deciding every aspect of everything in order to make it easy for itself to declare war. There must be an organization that is completely independent from the United States to decide if Saddam Hussein has truly violated the agreement, and if it should thrust us into a war that will end up being very long, apparently.

Therefore, the Security Council must be responsible for making this type of call, as to whether or not there really has been a flagrant violation. We know that Mr. Blix, who was the negotiator in Vienna, met with the Security Council today to inform members of the content of the agreement reached with Iraq. He met with them in person, and they discussed the agreement. Following the meeting, he said that he would now begin planning a trip to Iraq. Obviously, however, he would be waiting for the Security Council to rule on whether or not he would be allowed to leave for Iraq.

We know that France, among others, has made a proposal that the Security Council is examining at the present time. We do not know what the details of it are, but we do know that it would do away with the systematic use of force. This is a bit of a guarantee for Canada, because the Prime Minister assures us that he will do nothing without the United Nations. I trust that our Prime Minister will stick to that position, because we have the assurance of France that it will defend its position before the Security Council. I believe that the nature of this stand is reassuring to Canadians.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, first let me say that I am very glad to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate in Parliament. I think it is noteworthy that we are now in the third night of the debate. It shows that many members of the House from all sides wanted to be heard, wanted to be on record and wanted to participate in what is surely one of the most significant issues facing us over many years.

As I speak tonight and as other members of the NDP have spoken before me, I do so with a sense of grave danger and foreboding that unfortunately it appears that we are heading down a path where the U.S. political agenda is unfolding and determining a course that will cause the world to go into great conflict and will cause untold suffering, not only for innocent people in Iraq but also in a region that is already full of conflict.

I begin my remarks tonight with that great sense of foreboding. I was very heartened to see that last week there were more than 100 very prominent Canadians, including Margaret Atwood, Linda McQuaig, Senator Douglas Roche, Murray Dobbin, Judy Rebick and many others, who signed a statement calling on the Prime Minister to think very seriously about what course Canada takes. In that statement they said:

We, the undersigned, are deeply alarmed that the most powerful nations in the world continue to rely on military force to achieve their global political and economic goals--while eroding the standard of living, the environment, and the security of people throughout the world.

We are united in the belief that a military attack on Iraq at this juncture would be profoundly immoral, and would most certainly result in destabilizing repercussions that will endanger the whole world.

I would say that I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. In fact I was one of a number of members of Parliament who signed that statement.

I have also heard from many of my own constituents in East Vancouver, people who have taken the time to phone or e-mail me because they know that Parliament began its new session this week and because they knew that this would be the issue that we would be debating. They too wanted to express their incredible concern and reservation about what it is that Canada will do in terms of being complicit in a war plan against Iraq.

Like other members of our party, I want to be a voice in this Parliament. I hope there are more voices that will speak up for a global environment that respects peace and security, that respects international law and that respects the continuity of international law. I note that in a recent column written by Senator Roche he made this point very well, that the military and security document unveiled by President Bush just a couple of weeks ago is basically something that completely violates and flies in the face of the idea that international law, which has been built up so painstakingly over many decades through the United Nations and through the international community, is now poised to be completely dashed by this mad venture into a military conflict in the Middle East in Iraq.

I am very proud of the fact that the leader of the NDP, the member for Halifax, has from the very beginning unequivocally presented a position to the government and to the Canadian people that has advocated a position of respecting international law and not allowing ourselves to be dragged into some sort of mad race toward military conflict.

I was actually quite appalled when I heard the comments earlier of the Canadian Alliance member for Edmonton North when she took issue with other members of the House who somehow dared to be anti-American, as she said, to be inflammatory, because they suggested, and I would certainly add my voice, that Mr. Bush wants to go to war.

The truth be known, if we follow the events following September 11 in this exploding agenda of the war on terrorism, this is very much a part of Mr. Bush's domestic agenda which is to keep fueling the war he is waging. Now he has found a new target.

The member for Edmonton North questioned who we would go to when we needed help and suggested that because the Americans were our great ally that somehow we should fall in line and not dare to question. I say that the member for Edmonton North and other members of the Canadian Alliance who have voiced that kind of position are treading on very dangerous ground.

I believe the majority of Canadians fervently want the Canadian government and members of Parliament to stand up for a clear and unequivocal Canadian position that is not just some sort of blindly me too that is following President Bush.

One reason we need to do this is because, as the conflict now escalates and grows more complex, we can see that what takes place in this region is riddled with contradictions and double standards. We hear Mr. Bush on saying that somehow the existing UN resolution on the weapons inspectors is not good enough. The team was set to go, the terms had been met by Iraq and all of a sudden the goal posts changed again. Now it is back to the UN Security Council to try to convince it that it has to up the ante, change the goal posts and do it again.

If the issue of UN resolutions being ignored is such a pertinent issue, and I would agree that it is even though at this point Iraq has agreed to meet the conditions of the existing Security Council resolutions, why in other instances where UN resolutions have been flagrantly ignored is there silence on that question and no suggestion that we will be drawn into a conflict, for example, when it comes to UN resolutions respecting the rights of the Palestinian people to exist in an independent entity, or resolutions dealing with the illegal and ongoing occupation by Israel of the occupied territories, or the ongoing intimidation taking place?

The question of having these double standards is something of which more and more people are becoming aware. Yes, there are serious questions about weapons of mass destruction that may be in Iraq and it is incredibly important that the inspection team have all the scope it requires to make those inspections. However the greatest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction lies to the south of us.There are 12,500 nuclear weapons are in Bangor, Washington just south of British Columbia where I live and in other parts of the United States.

In fact in 1998 I was part of a citizens' weapons inspection team that dared to try to gain entry to Bangor, Washington where the Trident submarines were. We wanted to do our own weapons inspection to point out that these weapons of mass destruction were located in the United States as well in other countries. Therefore, we are not just talking about Iraq.

Again, I come back to this point that when we are dealing with these very grave issues of biological weapons, or weapons of mass destruction or a regime that is repressing its people, it is very important to act within international law within the international community.

In closing , I am very proud of the fact that we in the NDP have stood tall on this issue. I know Liberal backbenchers have also spoken out loudly and clearly.

At the end of this debate, we have to have a hope that the Canadian government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, will listen not only to the members of Parliament but to the Canadian people who do not want to see Canada become complicit in a terrible conflict in Iraq and in the Middle East that will cause untold suffering, never mind what has happened with the sanctions which have caused suffering and death of children and innocent people.

I hope this debate is for naught. I hope this debate is a message that the government will hear loud and clear. I hope the government will respect the wishes of the Canadian people and ensure that we respect and work within the international law and the international community.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I have a few comments and questions.

First, on the matter of the UN resolutions, she is correct in stating that there are some UN resolutions with which Israel has not complied. However we have to be fair on that matter by saying that the Palestinians have also not observed those resolutions to their full extent. She is right in saying that the UN should seek to enforce all the resolutions that have passed. That is one of the challenges the President made to the UN; that, as a world body, do not turn into a League of Nations, which has no enforceable authority, but seek to enforce the resolutions that it passes.

I am a little concerned about having the moral equivalent between the State of Israel, the United States democracy and the regime of Saddam Hussein. Could the member clarify that? She drew comparisons. Is she saying there is a moral equivalence between those types of regimes?

In terms of the inspection team, she mentioned that she wanted an inspection team with a fairly wide scope which we certainly support as well. However one argument that the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Blair and President Bush are making is that the current resolutions do not cover presidential palaces which in themselves are actually full compounds and that the new resolutions should certainly cover. Does she agree that there should be new resolutions to ensure that these so-called presidential palaces are covered?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member's comments and questions. First, it is important that UN resolutions be respected. As I pointed out, there are many that we could point to that have been completely violated and ignored in the Middle East over many years.

The issue though is on what basis will the resolutions be enforced. For us in the NDP, we believe strongly that the resolutions have to be enforced within the parameters of international law and within the UN. We are very opposed to the idea that President Bush has now set the stage or the agenda and moved the bar up. The goal posts continually change, almost on a daily basis, so that whatever is finally agreed will somehow no longer be good enough. That is something of which we should be incredibly suspicious and which we should speak against.

In terms of the situation in Israel, I have to ask the member if he considers it to be the act of a civilized democracy whereby a state would use its military apparatus to forcibly put people under occupation when that occupation is illegal? Is it the move of a civilized democracy when the state can use its apparatus to basically put a democratically elected leader under siege? I do not think so and we should be speaking out against that as well.

They are clearly different situations in Iraq and Israel. However the point I have made, which I think is relevant, is that it is hypocritical for the United States to focus on the one issue of what is going on in Iraq and somehow escalate this now to a war situation, while at the same time completely disregarding what has taken place in terms of an illegal occupation and a whole set of other people who have suffered as a result of that.

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

Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member, we cannot get into the whole Middle East debate and we obviously should have a debate on that, but I do want to address specifically tonight the issue of the situation in Iraq.

I have attempted to follow as much of this debate as possible over the last two nights. There have been some legitimate concerns raised about the actions, the possible actions and the possible consequences as a result of any action against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Tonight I will attempt to deal with some of those concerns.

The first legitimate concern which has been raised is whether an attack on Iraq will create a worse situation than there is right now in Iraq itself and in the region as a whole. This is obviously a legitimate concern. The Middle East as a whole is not a stable region. Israel and Palestine were mentioned, obviously Afghanistan as well. Saudi Arabia is another regime that has been mentioned that is not completely stable.

An attack on Iraq certainly could destabilize the region further and we have to recognize that possibility. However there are two points I would make to address this concern.

First, the threat of Saddam Hussein obviously has to prove to be more dangerous than the possible negative consequences to justify any action, including military, against him.

Second, the nations that may launch an attack against his regime must be prepared to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and work with the Iraqi people to ensure societal and institutional stability. This is absolutely crucial to achieve long term peace and we must hold our allies to this responsibility.

We in Canada should also shoulder our burden as a nation and be prepared to assist where we can. Canada is quite well suited to assist in this type of endeavour. With our forces so stretched in terms of any possible military action, it is unlikely we would take part. In terms of any post attack situation, we certainly could play a very relevant role.

The second concern I heard raised was whether an attack on Iraq would distract from the war on terrorism and the rebuilding of Afghanistan and whether it would cause even more terrorist attacks such as the one on September 11. This is obviously a very serious concern as well.

There is much work to be done in completing the war on terrorism such as the search for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda operatives. There is also a tremendous amount of effort that must be expended in rebuilding Afghanistan. It is not an oil rich country like others in the region and it needs what could be compared to a Marshall plan to help rebuild its economy.

We also need to build a regime in which the Afghani people can expect to better their lives. We do not know whether there are any people like Konrad Adenauer in Afghan or in Iraq who can shoulder this responsibility as that individual did in Germany post-World War II, which is why we should be prepared to assist in that endeavour.

Obviously any military action would put a strain on the resources particularly of the United Kingdom and the United States, but it is one that both leaders of those nations have said they are willing to bear.

In terms of the issue of more terrorist attacks, that is a serious concern as well. The fact is that we must make an intelligent guess on that. World leaders must ask if Saddam Hussein will make an attack if they do not make a pre-emptive strike against him. That must be the position if we are to have any sort of military action against a country.

That leads me into the next concern, which is whether there is justification for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. Obviously we would like to deal with this through the United Nations, and the right to take pre-emptive military action must be narrow and well justified. It should require a high level of evidence that a rogue state, which has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, is on the verge of developing them. Iraq certainly qualifies as a rogue state and it has used weapons of mass destruction in the past against two of its neighbours and certainly against its own people, the Kurds.

The question is what Iraq's capability is now. The Prime Minister of England has produced a document to substantiate many concerns. CSIS in our country and President Bush have produced some. The problem with assessing the evidence that might establish the justification for a pre-emptive attack against Iraq is that by its nature the best evidence is likely to be classified. It will generally come from spy satellites and from any spies on the ground.

An administration trying to garner support for an invasion will have to strike a balance between protecting its intelligence sources and making its case to the public. This makes it difficult for informed citizens and parliamentarians to decide how strong a case for pre-emptive action actually is without knowing everything that the U.S. administration knows. Unfortunately that is virtually impossible.

We are being told that Iraq is buying thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes capable of being used as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. It is developing a capacity to use drone aircraft to spray chemical and biological agents. It is expanding its efforts to enlist terrorists and carriers of weapons of mass destruction.

From these facts we can discern three conclusions. First, Iraq is determined to develop nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them; second, Iraq may not yet have that capacity; and thirdly, and perhaps the most crucial conclusion, how much time do we have before these nuclear weapons become operational and is it enough to warrant further efforts short of attacks, such as UN weapons inspection?

We have supported those intermediary steps to this point. We have applauded the President of the United States for going to the UN and seeking resolutions through the UN Security Council. That is what we think should be done. The U.S. always acts best when it acts as part of a multilateral force and we support those efforts.

The Bush administration has argued that if the UN does not act tough enough, or if Iraq does not comply with the sanctions, then it will certainly act. This means that the stakes are high and the facts are uncertain. In the age of conventional warfare, the presumption might well favour waiting and we would prefer to wait. But after September 11, and if waiting realistically increases the risk that we or our allies may be exposed to nuclear, biological or chemical attack by Iraq or Iraqi-sponsored terrorists, then the presumption may well favour immediate preventive action, especially if it can be taken so as to minimize civilian casualties.

Whatever course we pursue we may turn out to be wrong. The real question for us as parliamentarians is: would it be worse to err on the side of action that turns out to be unnecessary, or of inaction that exposes us to preventable devastation?

The fourth issue related to this is asks whether the U.S. or its allies, including the United Kingdom, have a right to try to effect regime change in another country? That is regime change as opposed to just trying to deter Saddam from amassing and deploying weapons of mass destruction. Obviously it would be better, everyone agrees, if we assume that Saddam Hussein could simply be deterred, if he could be convinced through a forceful resolution and enforcement by the United Nations to end his program of developing weapons of mass destruction.

We favour the UN Security Council passing a strong resolution to send in its weapons inspectors and have them, first, determine the extent of Saddam's weapons programs, and second, dismantle those programs. If this is not accomplished, and if Saddam continues to delay and deny, then there will need to be a stronger response from the United Nations. If the UN fails to act, then the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and others will act. They have said so. If those conditions all occur, then Canada should support these allies in that situation.

There must be consequences to the fact of Saddam not obeying UN resolutions or the UN not following through on its own resolutions. We in the official opposition hope that conflict and the loss of human life can be avoided, but we must also be prepared to support our allies, the U.S., the U.K., Australia and others, in sending a clear signal to Saddam Hussein that we will not stand by while he develops weapons of mass destruction. He must hear this signal loud and clear and, in order for him to understand it, it must be clear that we are prepared to use force if necessary.

One indubitable truth from human history is that the imperialistic tendencies of tyrants must be met by strength and resistance. Otherwise they will expand and they will use weapons of terror. That is evident throughout human history.

The world really changed after September 11 and we must recognize the uniqueness of that terrorist attack. It was even different from other terrorist attacks. It was not a group of terrorists taking a plane of hostages and saying to do this or else they will not release the hostages. It was a pre-emptive terrorist attack in which the people in those buildings and the leaders of that nation had no opportunity to do anything to prevent that attack.

That must be repeated and understood over and over. It was a unique terrorist attack because it was pre-emptive. There was no opportunity for the U.S. to respond in any way before it had its symbol of industrial strength, the World Trade Center, and its symbol of military power, the Pentagon, attacked. A third plane was headed for either the White House or Congress. Those pre-emptive strikes must be considered acts of war. They have changed the whole nature of human history. We must realize that we are in a post-September 11 world. Nobody wants war. No one wants the destruction of human life, and I think that is clear.

I happened to be in Washington on September 11, 2002, and there was a strong debate going on. The national security advisor was on the radio and Americans were phoning in debating and deliberating both sides of the Iraq issue. They wanted to know whether they should send their sons and daughters off to war.

Some of the comments from the other side of this House about American society were disappointing. It is a fruitful democracy in which this kind of debate and deliberation takes place. We must recognize that the character of that democracy as well as the character of other democracies is completely inequivalent to the character of the regime under Saddam Hussein. Some of the moral equivalents between regimes of that type cannot be repeated. We must make a clear distinction of kind between those two.

Canada must stand with its allies in ensuring that Saddam Hussein understands that failure to comply to complete and total access by UN weapon inspectors will have--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I know 10 minutes goes by very fast.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Madam Speaker, would my hon. colleague from Edmonton Southwest give us the benefit of his views on the problems that might result in Iraq among peoples of different branches of the Muslim faith like the Kurds, for example? I do not think he mentioned any of those problems when he was giving his speech.

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

Madam Speaker, certainly any military action against Iraq will create tensions in the region and could create tensions within the various factions of the Muslim faith.

In the past Saddam Hussein has used horrific chemical weapons against the Kurds. It is rather ironic that Saddam Hussein says he is heir to Saladin, the great Muslim figure of the third crusade who in fact was a Kurd. In this century Hussein is using him against the people he is purporting to be a descendant from.

It is true that Saddam Hussein holds the support of many Sunni Muslims in Iraq and that would create some friction within that community. There is the long-standing historical friction between the Persian community in Iran and the Shiite Muslims and the Sunni Muslims. Those frictions exist now. Will those frictions become worse with an attack on Iraq? Possibly.

It could possibly destabilize other regimes. We must be prepared for those consequences. That is why we must ensure that it is more dangerous not to have an attack and ensure that we are justified if an attack takes place. We must also ensure that after an attack if it so happens that we are prepared with our allies to shoulder our burden to ensure some sort of societal and institutional stability in that region.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I too listened intently to the member's remarks in which he expressed the wish that if there is to be a regime change brought about by the United States and the United Kingdom that those countries would stick around to do the clean up and put the country on a better path in the future. Those are good words.

Since the Marshall plan that he alluded to, has there been a time over the past 50 years when the United States intervened in other countries and stayed behind to clean up the rubble following its military intervention? Can the member tell us one occasion when it did that? Is it not more accurate to say that it has simply moved on to what it considers to be the next area that needs to have a regime change?

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been nothing of the sort, or nothing of the size or magnitude of the Marshall plan, since that time. That was probably unique in history. It is not an excuse for not going into Iraq. It is a reason to be concerned about an attack on Iraq because one of the real consequences is that we will have a destabilized region there.

I do share some of the concern of the hon. member. A lot of our foreign policies, and foreign policies of most nations today, are too short-sighted and tend to be focused on where CNN is pointing at that moment, whether it is Somalia, Rwanda or wherever. The U.S., in certain regions, now in South Korea with its trading with Taiwan, has attempted to, at least through trade and diplomatic initiatives, ensure that those regions remain stable democracies. I think those are two examples.

It is incumbent upon us as allies to ask the United States to ensure that it does stay in the region and that if it is going to take an action such as this that it does have a plan for ensuring societal and institutional stability afterwards. Otherwise it will create a situation similar to the one with the Shah of Iran where it was worse than it was in the first place.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to follow the member for Edmonton Southwest. I would like to congratulate him on a very sensitive and wise analysis of the situation that is before us tonight.

I would like to add one additional point that has been indirectly referred to. The notion that there could be a nuclear capability in Iraq is probably the single most important facet of this whole notion of the world being terrorized in an unconventional sense.

It seems to be that the traditional power that is associated with diplomacy is where nations of good faith have sat down together and discussed the terms and conditions that would bring them to a peace that would be in their nation's interest and in the interest of the nations of the world.

This is skewed in very profound ways. If a leader of the nature of Saddam Hussein were to have a nuclear capability, it would be destabilizing to the point where there would be no balance in the area, but it would be the utilization of terror and international terrorism. Just the threat that he would have that capacity would change the whole way and manner that we sit down and negotiate differences. To think that possibility could be in the hands of a Saddam Hussein is, I believe, what drives the United States to the degree of concern that it has, that the world could be held hostage by a single nation unlike any other nation in the recent past.

The Indian-Pakistani situation over Kashmir has brought saner minds to bear on the situation. The notion of the level of annihilation that would be invoked on each of those nations has brought them to the point where they have backed away with the support of the international community. However that would not be the case if Iraq were to acquire, indeed if it has not already, that nuclear capability. It would destabilize the area. We simply must bring every manner of intervention that we have to bear on that possibility.

Traditionally we have done that through the United Nations, through article 24, which was given the responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security, and is defined in terms of collective responsibility which was discharged to the authority of the Security Council. This is what gives a decision to use force its legitimacy. When we decided, incidentally, to use that force against Iraqi aggression in 1991, the international community, through the Security Council, was the legitimization for that action.

The substance of the role that we have played so far has been to bring a multilateral solution, through the United Nations, to bear on the situation with respect to Iraq. I believe, having listened to the three evening debates, that still is the correct course.

I can only add one constructive piece of advise as a result of everything that has been said. Inflicting harm on innocent Iraqi people has to be considered. As it has been suggested, there will be a huge rebuilding program, and still remains without a war, required in Iraq as it is in Afghanistan. If we wish to replace the terrorization by the administration of Saddam Hussein with a regime that is guided by human rights, natural justice and rule of law, then we have a huge job to do.

What has happened to the innocent Iraqi citizens is a result of the refusal of the regime that terrorizes Iraq to allow food in and by it not coming to agreement with the resolutions that would open the door to the kind of aid that would go into Iraq to start to rebuild and work toward these democratic institutions. None of these things can happen until there is an agreement that opens the doors to the inspections that were called for under earlier Security Council resolutions of the United Nations.

My take on the situation is that we must support the United States in gaining unequivocal access to inspections within Iraq. We should advise that there is the capacity to be very selective should there be any compromising on the part of Iraq with respect to allowing those sites to be inspected. If they do not allow the inspections then the full military might of a multilateral force would be brought to bear on those sites. That would be a judicious use of the absolute capability, which is undeniable, of not only the United States but the free nations of the world that would join it.

I say that just as one additional approach to preciseness because it seems to me that people are alarmed at the ad hoc nature of intelligence gathering and what it tells us we should do or where we are with respect to Saddam Hussein. However, the one thing that is quite clear in everyone's mind is that his regime must not be allowed to advance any further in terms of biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction and the ability for him to change the conventional negotiations that we have enjoyed through the United Nations and through responsible state to state agreements.

It is with respect to being more precise, in the spirit that the previous speaker has spoken so eloquently, that if I were advising the President of the United States--and we did have a similar debate earlier if the House recalls when we were advising our Prime Minister what to tell the president when he was going to see him just prior to the Afghanistan initiative--I would, with great humility, tell him to be very precise, at least at the beginning, with the wording of the Security Council resolution, that we would support the United States in gaining that preciseness, and that, in terms of military operations, we should be very tactically correct and exact in order not to further harm the innocent Iraqi civilian population and lose the credibility of the international community. When we take action and we take it together, we take it with the strength of our convictions, our commitment to democracy and the values of our countries to allow the Iraqi people the freedom that would make them a part of the family of nations.

However, in order to do that we must be very careful in carrying out the mission that we have in terms of the international community and our leadership within it.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that makes me a bit nervous is when he talks about us focusing our cooperative efforts with the Americans in order to have Saddam Hussein comply with any possible UN resolutions that may come down the pipe.

My concern is the possibility or the perception that one nation or a couple of nations may act unilaterally in a particular theatre of the world in order to achieve an end goal. My approach and that of my party has always been that any action or any resolution must come fully from within the United Nations itself. If the United Nations decides on a plan of action, then that is the direction I believe it should go without any possible perceptions of coercion or whatever.

History is littered with rogue nations that had thugs as leaders: Mouammar al-Khadafi of Libya, Idi Amin of Uganda and Pol Pot of Cambodia. The world is littered with some pretty bad people who have done some rotten things to their own people. We, as an international community, are very hesitant to go into those areas to protect the citizens of those countries.

My question to the hon. member is, would it not be better to work through the United Nations on a more multilateral approach to this very serious problem in the Middle East? If we act unilaterally with only a couple of nations, we could be opening a door that we may never be able to close.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my contention that the United Nations, through the Security Council, is absolutely central to finding a diplomatic resolution to the present impasse.

At this point I think it is absolutely clear that Iraq must not, in the interests of maintaining that international solidarity through the United Nations and respect for it, be able to continue to defy the Security Council and the United Nations as it does right now, never mind a future resolution.

I hope the member understands that my emphasis at this point is to continue to focus our actions through the UN.

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

Madam Speaker, what has been bothering me as we have gone through the debate has been that things are changing very rapidly. At one point we had Iraq agreeing to allow inspectors and to abide by the existing resolution and then all of a sudden the goalposts were moved. We did not think the resolutions were tough enough and we needed to make them tougher.

The suggestion has been made by respectable political figures in the United States that this is becoming very much a domestic election issue south of the border. I cannot help but start believing them. It seems to me that if the test is to go after those who defy UN resolutions, there are other countries besides Iraq that are defying them and we are not acting on it. If the test is to go after countries that have weapons of mass destruction, there are lots of other countries with a lot more weapons of mass destruction than Iraq.

I wonder what happened to public enemy number one, Osama bin laden, who was wanted dead or alive. We have not heard his name mentioned lately. The new poster boy is Saddam Hussein. As brutal a person and dictator that he is, there are many dictators who fit the same mould.

My concern, and what concerns me more and more, is the way the United Nations is being bullied by the President of the United States. We have to be careful as Canadians of the integrity of a decision by the United Nations and ultimately the approval of the Security Council, and that it is done as the will of the UN and the Security Council and not because they were bullied into it.

We know right now that there will be elections in two more years. I am sure there will be another poster boy who we will have to get rid of. That is my concern. That is why I think the integrity of the UN is so important and that it should not be bullied.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are many messages that have come out. The major one is that there may be, in the near future, weapons of mass destruction. I would suggest that in the short term, regardless of the speculation vis-à-vis the internal situation in the United States, annihilating those suspicious sites would be a major message that all the people in the United States, in fact in the free world, would support fully.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I felt compelled to take part in this debate on the Iraq situation. Over the last couple of weeks I have gone from one side of the equation to the other in dealing with the concerns. I appreciate some of the concerns that have been expressed, some of the historical sequences that have happened, some of the things that countries have done that perhaps they should not have done, but I think we have to look at where we are. We have to look at where the United States is right now and, whether we like it or not, September 11, 2001, changed the way we all look at things. The United States is now holding hearings in its Congress over the information the intelligence communities had. Had they put it together, had they shared the information, had they done something about it, they could have prevented what happened on September 11.

We are dealing with a nation that is having to look at information and how it deals with the information it has. Even on the other side, where people have a concern with the direction that the United States is going in or appears to be going in, they admit that the foe is a mighty foe, that Saddam Hussein is a horrible person who has shown absolutely no kind of moral climate, either in his own country or in his dealings with other countries, that he used biological weapons of destruction against the Kurds, and that he used the same against the Iranian soldiers in the Iran-Iraq war. He has a history of using weapons of mass destruction. He has a history of not being concerned about his people. There has been more concern shown for the people of Iraq from the members of the House, this Chamber, than their own leader has shown.

There is also a concern about changing the conditions of the UN resolutions. There is a reason for wanting to change the conditions. There are 17 resolutions out of the United Nations and they compromise themselves by saying that presidential palaces are excluded. There is a concern, and there should be, about them being excluded. These are not residential palaces like Buckingham Palace. It is not our terminology that they use. These palaces are huge, massive compounds. It has been brought to my attention that there are 8 of them, that there are over 1,000 buildings, some of them large warehouse buildings, and that one of these palaces covers 44,000 acres, which is larger than Washington, D.C. There are an awful lot of things that can be stored, developed and hidden in an area of 44,000 acres, in something the size of Washington, D.C. It would be very naive for anybody to expect that this kind of area would not be part of the allowable inspection.

Tonight and in other debates I also heard concern that the United States is setting Canada's foreign policy, that Canadians are being sucked into having to follow the United States and its foreign policy. I would suggest that people should be equally as concerned if we were to let the United Nations set our foreign policy, if we expect the United Nations to set Canada's foreign policy. I think Canadians expect the Canadian government, the House of Commons and the Canadian Parliament to set Canada's foreign policy, keeping in mind what is in the best interests of Canada.

I think that what has to be and has been brought up in the debate is the role of the United Nations. It was established precisely to deal with conflicts between countries, hopefully to bring the collective will, thought or pressure of the world communities into peacefully settling these conflicts between nations rather than having nations unilaterally taking military action.

As a Canadian, I am pleased to see that the United States has gone that route. The United States has not at this point unilaterally gone to war against Iraq. The United States is willing to recognize the role of the United Nations, albeit it has run into problems enforcing the 17 resolutions currently on the table. The United States has said to the United Nations “Let us try to get a tougher resolution and then let us go to bat to support it”. That is a critical point. It is not good enough for the United Nations to pass resolutions and look like it is doing something. It has to be seen by the world community as doing something. It has to be seen that when it makes a decision, when it makes and passes a resolution, it has the will and the might to enforce it. If all the UN does is put a piece of paper on the table and is not prepared to enforce it, then it is just a paper tiger.

I think the United States is correct when it says to the United Nations that it is willing to recognize the UN's authority or place in this debate, that it is willing to recognize the world community in dealing with this issue, but that in the end game, if it can be shown that the United Nations is not prepared to act on it, then the United States will have to act on its own or with its allies.

The best way to describe Canada's situation is that Canadians need to be convinced by the United States, Great Britain, Australia and those that have gathered as part of the growing allies of the United States that there is justification, that it would be a just action for us to join them. The best way to describe where we are is to borrow the phrase of former American supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: There must be “a clear and present danger” to justify this pre-emptive strike. Canadians have to be shown that there is a clear and present danger to us and to the western democracies.

It is important that we go through this process of having the United Nations look at a new resolution to make sure that all areas are part of the inspection. In the event that the United Nations does not come up with a new resolution, in the event that the United Nations is not prepared to support the resolutions already on the table, and if Canadians feel it has been shown that there is a clear and present danger of biological, chemical or nuclear warfare being used against the United States, against us, or against the free world, then we are obliged to be part of the effort to make sure that does not happen.

I think that is what Canadians have to deal with: the decision may come down to the fact that we have to take part in the American-led allied team action against Iraq. That leads us to a concern a lot of Canadians have, and that is the sorry state of our military. Here we are, once again being asked to put our military into harm's way. It is a disgrace that the government has allowed our military to get into the state that it is in. The military lack the equipment, the personnel and the funding to properly equip themselves and to be in a readied state to assist in any kind of armed conflict in which they may be asked to participate. It is interesting that it was the Liberal chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs who stated last spring that our foreign policy is this: writing cheques that our military cannot cash. That is a very interesting statement coming as it does from a Liberal committee chair.

It reflects how all Canadians see the situation our government constantly puts our military in. I think that Canadians feel, regardless of what happens with Iraq and whether we end up in a military conflict with the allied forces in Iraq, that the government must pay more attention to and give more resources to our military so that when they are called upon to act on behalf of Canada or the world community they are in a position to do so.

I look forward to the end of this debate and hope the end result is that there are satisfactory resolutions coming out of the United Nations, and I hope that the United Nations will show the strength and the will to support those actions and support what has to happen to make sure that Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the world community.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague from British Columbia. One of the reasons we have the United Nations is so that one nation cannot act unilaterally against other nations. That is the reason why the United Nations was developed well over 50 years ago.

I would assume that the member has been talking with her constituents and others across the country as well. Would she not agree regarding the fact that most Canadians I have spoken to and most of the ones we have spoken to at length really are hoping that any action, any resolutions or anything, must come from the world community through the UN?

I know that some folks here have criticized us for going after President Bush in that regard, but bear in mind that if we disagree with a particular policy of the President of the United States it does not make us anti-American. We know that the Americans are our best friends and our best trading partners, and we will be allies for a long, long time. Sometimes we do question some of their policies, both historically and the current one as well.

This is why the NDP in particular, and others in the House as well from all other parties, encourages whatever action required to deal with Saddam Hussein to come from the United Nations, because it will not just be Saddam Hussein. What is next after that? What precedent will it set? We believe seriously that action must come from a directive of the United Nations, completely and wholly. Would the member not agree with that?

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would agree that Canadians are hopeful that the United Nations will take a stand and be very strong in the position that it takes with Iraq. Canadians generally are very hopeful that the United States will give the United Nations an opportunity to go as far as it will. But I think Canadians are also very aware that the United Nations has failed the world community in the past as well, that the United Nations in many instances has failed to act when it should have. If the hon. member would look at Kosovo, it was not the United Nations that stepped in, it was NATO.

So I think that there is also a history showing that the United Nations has been slow to act or has not acted at all. Canadians recognize that and are hopeful that the United Nations will show some teeth in this action it has to take.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, many of my colleagues on this side, and colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP, and the member from Edmonton, have spoken out quite courageously against Canada's involvement in a unilateral military strike against Iraq. Such action would compromise, and more or less minimize, the role of the United Nations efforts to maintain at least an equilibrium and avoid military methods that would kill more innocent civilians than active combatants of a regime. Needless to say, it would destroy an infrastructure in Iraq that is already so weak that it would plunge the population into more dire misery.

Canada in the past has gained recognition in the world as a peacekeeper, not as a powder monkey. I often feel that if we cannot adhere to the charter of the United Nations, what hope is there in this world to eventually have peace?

I am expressing what many in the past have probably said in this chamber. A civilized world cannot have one or a few nations with incredible military might imposing their methods or ways. One powerful and supported international body like the United Nations is really the only solution to curb and dismantle regimes of tyrants and madmen, and the case in point is Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Many of my colleagues here and across the way have shown the dangers that we could be involved in with a unilateral strike. It certainly would not be in the interests of the whole of the Middle East. It could destabilize some of the other countries over there and plunge us into a situation that could be disastrous to all nations in the world.

I was reading some American editorials and one that I read a few weeks ago appeared in USA Today . A rather interesting observation was made by the man who wrote the editorial.

He said that of all those in the present administration under President Bush, all those that are the hawks, not one of them has ever served in the military. They have never worn a uniform. They have not got a clue in the world about being a combatant or being in a situation like many hundreds of thousands of Americans were, be it in the Korean war, the Vietnam war or the second world war. On the other side, senators, some members of Congress, the house of representatives, and even the secretary of state, Colin Powell, and other people who have served in the military and know what is implicated, are constantly trying to explain that there is a serious danger.

I find that rather interesting. Those that know what warfare is about and what it can project us into are very weary. They are the people we should be listening to. I hardly have any faith in people who know nothing about military life or engagement in combat yet they are the most hawkish that we have.

My colleague from Edmonton gave me a document which I believe was written by a former ambassador to Canada from Europe. He had some very interesting comments about the situation. He stated that we have to remember that Iraq is a country of 23 million people. Ethnically speaking there are 75% to 80% who are Arab and 15% to 20% who are Kurdish. Of course 95% of the population are of the Islamic faith.

He went through some of the history of Saddam Hussein, how he seized power in 1979 and his war against Iran that caused nearly one million deaths. Then there was the war with Kuwait that was so destructive. Of course we are dealing with a tyrant and a madman.

We look further and see that some of his comments are quite interesting. He said that in reading the British intelligence dossier on Iraq, one could see that the grounds used to justify a war against Iraq are not so much based on actual weapons or facilities for which evidence is presented, but rather on potential developments that may or may not occur in the future. No instant overwhelming menace is offered and the possibility of other options is unmistakable. He said that evidently going to war would unquestionably be excessive. There is no doubt about that.

The United Nations and the whole idea and principle of the charter was to at all costs avoid conflict like this where the lives of innocent people are taken.

These are his observations and he has had a long experience as a diplomat. We could go into detail and talk hours on end. We could go back into history, but essentially we should focus on this particular issue. His conclusion was that Iraq has been destroyed through war and embargo. A United States military unilateral operation against this already wretched country would, he claimed, constitute an act of state terrorism that would be likely to cause thousands of civilian casualties, adding to those that we had in 1990. It would increase the threat of terrorism dramatically because there is no doubt it would put a frenzy into a lot of maniacal people who feel that they have no alternative but to sacrifice themselves and bring about destruction on others. He said that there is no doubt in his mind it would destabilize the whole region.

We know that because of the strategic importance of the Middle East and the oil reserves, if there was a serious destabilization in that part of the world, it would have repercussions throughout the whole world. There is no doubt that it would plunge us into a recession and not only a recession but it would create such turmoil and conflict, it would take us years to get out of it.

In conclusion, let us hope and pray that the United Nations and the nations of this world realize that any unilateral action is against the best interests of all nations. With moderation and with the help of the United Nations, it can perform all the inspections it needs to ease our minds about this threat in Iraq.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman said that a multilateral body such as the United Nations should be the only body to dismantle regimes of tyrants.

My question to him is what if the UN fails to act, as in the case of Cambodia, the case of Rwanda, the case of Uganda and the case even of the former Yugoslavia? What if the UN fails to act? Is he suggesting that NATO was not justified in going into the former Yugoslavia, as per the advice of the United Kingdom, as per the advice of the Czech president, Vaclav Havel? Is he suggesting that NATO was not justified in that activity? What is he suggesting we do as moral citizens of this world if the United Nations does not act, which it has not done in many instances in the past?

The member quoted a document that the minister passed out, and he kindly passed me the same document. This person does not want the U.S. to have a military intervention into Iraq. What this person is suggesting, this former diplomat from Canada, should happen is:

Another course of action is available. The UN should take Baghdad on its word, the absence of any weapons of mass destruction has been asserted. And the promise of unfettered inspections has been made. In case limitations are imposed or an exception is made in future for whatever reason, this should be construed as an indication that there is something to hide. Any site--whether a palace or a school, a field hospital or a mosque--whereto access is obstructed or denied will be deemed to conceal military facilities, include industrial compounds or camouflage stockpiles of missiles and/or weapons. No need for inspection: the site will be destroyed. A raid of aircraft capable of night vision and precision guided bombing will do the job. Once the site is reduced to rubble, the inspection team should be allowed to examine this “ground zero” unless there still is some activity underground. New raids will follow until the team is satisfied that no threatening activity is unaccounted for.

That is what this former diplomat is suggesting. Instead of the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia and others operating in an action against Iraq, is this what the member is suggesting the Americans and the others do in Iraq?

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will take the second question first.

If, through the United Nations, they want complete access to all sites, nobody disagrees with that. They should have total access to all sites. If they find any evidence of weapons of mass destruction or biological warfare, they should act upon it. Nobody disputes that.

In the first question the member brought out the fact that the United Nations in the past, be it in Rwanda or other countries, did not act. That is true, it did not act. However, quite often, especially in the Security Council, some nation put a veto. Unfortunately it has been the case too often in the past where the veto has been used against the United Nations and therefore, it could not act. We have to keep that in mind.

I do not want to have to say who has used the veto more than anybody else in the United Nations since its creation, but they are very close to us.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way talked about those who were in uniform and those who were not in uniform in terms of the power of the United States. What he failed to mention was that over 80% of all American elected officials do not have a passport. They do not support the international criminal court. They do not support the international ban on landmines.

This is not just to rant and say I am anti-American in any way, contrary to the truth. The fact is when it comes to international agreements beyond what we are discussing here tonight, the United States is very reluctant to support the world community in an action of that nature.

The member mentioned the oil situation. Other people have said that the United States is so mad at Saddam Hussein because of George Bush's father. Other people have said it is because of the oil and the riches and the control of the wealth that is under the Iraqi soil. Other people have said it is for strictly crass political reasons.

What does the hon. member think is driving the United States to push so hard to get rid of Saddam Hussein? I agree that Saddam Hussein is someone who should not be around any more, but how we deal with him needs to be done on a multilateral approach.

I would like to ask the member exactly what he thinks is pushing the United States. Could it be September 11? Could it be a number of reasons?

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a combination of all those different things. The target was Afghanistan and bin Laden. Now it is Iraq and Saddam Hussein. I listened to an editorial by a journalist from Le Monde last week on the CBC French network where he said this whole thing has an odour of oil.

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

Madam Speaker, it seems to me as I listen to more of the speeches in the House that we have somehow or another forgotten the date of September 11. After that event we were shocked. Everyone in the world was shocked. Many of us were surprised that it went to that extent. The damage that it did was unbelievable.

Right after that event I listened to Mr. Bush several times and heard him loudly and distinctly say that the responsible people were terrorists and that America was declaring war on terrorism. Is that true? Did he declare war on terrorism? I am sure he did. Now suddenly we are listening to the fellow who just asked a question about the motives behind why these things are happening. Has September 11 been forgotten?

Americans are encouraging their president to continue down that line because the last thing they ever want to see happen again is another event that took place like September 11. They want all steps to be taken that are necessary to ensure that it never happens again.

I appreciate the paper I received from the hon. member from the Liberal Party. I appreciate that because it is a well thought out idea of an individual indicating the way he sees it. It is a rational thinking paper. I cannot argue with that. It is too bad that I did not write down some of the conversations that I had with military personnel from the United States who were in the gulf war and who spent a lot of time in that region, including my own son who has spent a few months in that region because he is in the United States army. He would ask this particular person: Do you not really understand how serious of a threat this human being is? Yes, there are dangers to whatever one does when it comes to war. We are at war with terrorism. Of course there are dangers. No one denies that.

I talked to people on both sides of the border. I was trying to get a feel for what the people on the ground were thinking about the world situation. They do not get the opportunity to read CSIS reports and FBI reports and military intelligence reports. They are common ordinary folk who would really like to get a feel for what is going on. They were adamant in saying that we must do everything that we can to make certain that this kind of thing never, ever happens again. They said that we must make absolutely certain that individuals who have indicated in the past that they are capable of bringing total disaster on numerous people, like Saddam Hussein, who has done it over and over again, who has made rash statements about how he would wipe out half of the Zion nation, are stopped. We cannot sit back and take that lightly.

I want to thank Dave Naylor, a reporter from the Calgary Sun . I never received permission to quote part of his article, but I think this man is bang on. He writes:

If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age.

This is not a recent bit of rhetoric. This is from President George Bush in his attempt to acquire international support for a pre-emptive attack on Saddam. The quote is Winston Churchill commenting on Adolf Hitler. History has forgotten that Churchill, who was one of the greatest leaders of all time, was widely criticized as a warmonger. He was especially called a warmonger when he called for military action against Germany's new Nazi regime.

The then British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, said that Churchill could not be trusted and described Churchill as “a dangerous man”. Chamberlain instead chose to trust Hitler. After meeting with Hitler in Munich, Chamberlain said that for the second time in British history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. He told his people to go home and get a nice, quiet sleep as all was well. It was not long before the world found out how well it could sleep and how well a tyrant could be trusted like Hitler. We are in the same situation now.

There is no evidence is what I hear over and over again. I even heard some of the Liberals quote the amount of tonnes of different kinds of gases, mustard and anthrax. They know about the quantities that are being produced. They know what Saddam Hussein did to thousands of people in his own land. They know of the episodes of beheading anyone who spoke against him and putting the head on public display for his own people to look at, so that they could learn a lesson that he was not putting up with anything. They know what kind of a tyrant he is.

When people such as George Bush and Tony Blair speak out in the manner that they are, they are not basing it on anything more than solid stuff that must be coming through strong intelligence work.

I would rather trust what they are doing in their hands than to trust diplomacy with a person like Saddam Hussein. He is not capable of being responsible or responsive to any diplomatic efforts. We must realize that. He has proven that over and over again. He has laughed in the face of the United Nations when he defied its resolutions 16 times. Do members of the House think it matters to him when he is of that frame of mind?

That is a little to the other side of some of the comments that I have heard, quite a bit to the other side. It is worth thinking about, as well as the document that was handed to me by my good friend from Edmonton. History and some of the hard facts about this human being must be seriously considered. What is the man capable of and what will he do?

Saddam Hussein does not hate the world because of poverty, as the Prime Minister believes. Iraq is not a poor nation. Iraq could be one of the richest nations on earth if Saddam was not squandering all his wealth on himself by amassing weapons that he will use against vast populations. He will use them.

Saddam Hussein is not an individual who reasons or feels any remorse. When is the last time the world has heard any remorse come from Saddam Hussein about anything? Did members see him weeping and sending condolences to the United States and to Canada when we lost our citizens when the mighty towers of the World Trade Center fell? I do not think so. He was probably cheering, smiling and enjoying it.

Soft diplomats on that side of the House prefer to work through multilateral, international institutions, meaning the United Nations. Yet in 1998 these same people supported limited military strikes by our good friends, the United States and Britain, and at that time there was no explicit Security Council authorization of any kind. What has happened to them now? Why was it supportable then and not now?

It is this kind of inconsistency that sends the wrong signal to Saddam Hussein. He sees hesitation as a weakness. He sees those who seek diplomatic solutions as weaklings. He is not a man of reason, nor is he a man of remorse and we should never forget that.

I wish to compliment the Liberals speakers who are here tonight for not bashing the United States as they did a couple of nights ago. Even Warren Kinsella came on TV and said that it was the wrong thing for them to do. These people to the south are our neighbours. I would like members who bash them one more time to stand in their place and tell me who they would like to have in their place as neighbours rather than the United States. They should stop it. These are people we can rely on. Let us get with the program.