Debates of Jan. 29th, 2003

Iraq

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

I do not know who these people would rather have for a neighbour, but I will stick with the United States.

We do not have to have fearmongering speeches to know what Saddam Hussein is capable of doing. I want to ensure that my kids and grandkids will grow up in a world where those kinds of things do not exist and we have people who have the courage to stand up and say that they will take whatever it takes to ensure the safety of our kids through the years.

I am sorry, but I am afraid that sometimes talk will not get the answer. That was proven in World War I, World War II and a number of other times. I do not understand why the member thinks George Bush is fearmongering. Saddam Hussein has been fearmongering ever since I heard about him.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chairman, two expressions come to mind. One is that jaw-jaw is always better than war-war. Second, let me quote directly what the immediate past foreign affairs minister of this government said about the increasing threats of pre-emptive strikes and the talk about regime change. He said:

It has given renewed vigour to the apostles of realpolitik--bringing out of the shadows all those who find notions of humanitarian co-operation, international justice and the rule of law to be anathema. It has given birth to a doctrine of pre-emption, which arrogates to the United States the right to be judge, jury and prosecutor against any country, or anyone it considers a threat, running contrary to half a century of international law and the Charter of the United Nations.

This member can call it fearmongering on the part of New Democrats but we would be well to begin to adhere to the doctrine of human security approaches to the threats to world peace that are imposed for sure in the instance of Iraq, but are also presented by the kind of tactics that are being pursued increasingly by our closest American neighbours.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chairman, let me start on a procedural note. I regret very much that the government chooses take note debates over real debates followed by a vote. I think that is bad for Parliament. It confirms the reputation of this place as a place that only talks, does not act and does not have authority. It is also bad for policy because the government has neither the authority that a real vote would give nor does it have access to the consensus and the understanding that can come when governments are open with people.

I do not want to belabour it but there is a better way to do this. In the question of the preparation for the gulf war there were regular votes. There was a continual hearing before the relevant standing committee of Parliament. There was an opportunity for Parliament to be heard and for Parliament's vote to count. I would recommend that to the government of the future.

There was one difference of course with the gulf war and that was, whether people agreed with our government or not, that the Government of Canada had a policy which we explained, defended and advanced in the world. The government today cannot explain what it is doing because it does not know what it is doing.

I want to start with what is clear about Iraq. The regime in Iraq is vicious, brutal and dangerous. It is dangerous to the region and it is dangerous to the world. It has developed weapons of mass destruction and it has shown a willingness to use those weapons. Everyone, not least the citizens of Iraq, would be better off with a new regime. It is also clear that since the pressure went on, Iraq has begun to heed the United Nations and world opinion. This pressure would have been nowhere near as strong, it has to be said, without the leadership of the United States of America. That the UN inspectors are there at all is a tribute to American determination.

The issue we have to look at here is what does Canada do? First, we have to make our own decisions in our own traditions. I know the minister had to leave tonight to get to Washington. I was pleased that before he left he cited the phrase from the president's speech that struck my attention, namely that the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. That certainly is language that Canadians should regularly quote back to the government of the United States.

One of the difficulties that we face, although I will not have time to elaborate, is that the government has so ignored relations between Canada and the United States that it has none of the leverage that is needed to say no to the United States on tough issues. I know something about that. As foreign minister in a previous government we had to deal with a demand by the United States to have Canada endorse an issue that was very dear to the heart of the then president, the so-called strategic defence initiative, star wars. We were able to say no to the Americans and to maintain good relations because we had built up strong leverage with the Americans.

This government's abandonment of the relationship with the United States of America has meant that we are being forced willy-nilly into a Hobson's choice between the United Nations and the United States, and hat is simply another failure of the policy of the government.

Second, we should be using all the independent influence that we have to bring pressure for change in the Iraq regime, including our influence in the region; including such influences as we have left as our ODA levels fall and fall; including such influences as we have left in the developing world; and including looking for potential asylum for Saddam Hussein, if that is the only peaceful way by which the regime can be brought about. Our influence has withered as our defence spending has fallen, as our official development assistance has fallen, but we nonetheless still have significant influence in the world.

Third, and this is a key matter in the debate tonight raised with eloquence by the leader of the Bloc Québécois and others, we have to respect the United Nations and we have to respect international law.

It may be that a special burden of leadership rests with the world's only super power and that it must contemplate acts which other nations would not contemplate. However a special burden also rests with this country whose distinction is not our naked power but our leadership in building and respecting international institutions. More than the regime in Iraq is at issue, so also is the regime of international law and the respect for international institutions.

Canada has always played its role as a member of multinational coalitions. We did so proudly and effectively during the gulf war. We did so under the auspices of NATO in Kosovo. However, we have always acted in the context of the United Nations and the international community.

Before the minister left he spoke two or three times about working with the United Nations now. He treats as hypothetical and leaves open the possibility that Canada would take actions that are not approved by the Security Council of the United Nations. He should stop doing that. He should be clear that Canada will operate only within the authority of the United Nations and he should not hold open the possibility of some kind of independent act.

Of all countries, Canada should not be ambiguous about our respect for the United Nations and for international law. We should be clear now that we will act only within the context of initiatives sanctioned by the Security Council.

Finally, I want to talk about what I think is a real need of context here. We in Canada should be the strong, calm voice urging cool-headed examination of the consequences of all the actions that are proposed and, indeed, the consequences of inaction. For example, if an attack were to occur, particularly were it to occur outside the auspices of the United Nations, what would be the impact on the stability of the rest of the Middle East and particularly on the stability of moderate regimes in Egypt or Jordan or the regime in Saudi Arabia? How would the tinderbox in Israel--Palestine be affected? How much more aggressive and dangerous would anti-Americanism become in the wider Muslim world, from Africa to Asia to the former Soviet Union? What would be the fate of the real and broad coalition which was built to fight terrorism, a coalition that could come apart over the issue of an intervention that was not broadly supported?

What reason on earth have we to believe that outside powers could create a successful new regime in Iraq or even hold together the Iraqi state? How likely is it that the war would be short? How likely is it that the very weapons we fear might be unleashed in desperation?

It is easy to be mesmerized by the debate in the United States, which is a debate naturally fueled by its status as a super power and by its difficulty sometimes seeing the world as others of us see it. However we have a responsibility as a country with our own independent reputation, very often a reputation of working very closely with the United States, to be prepared to tell hard truths to the United States, including on occasions saying “Don't go there, don't do it that way, do it this way”. We also have a reputation as a supporter of the United Nations on multinational approaches. We have to turn the world's attention in these critical next several weeks to some of the consequences of some of the actions that might be being contemplated. We cannot let Canada simply drift into support by ambiguity or by some other kind of drift.

The next two steps in the process are clear. Secretary Powell will come next week to the Security Council with evidence, and he should understand that the world expects to see evidence. There were several references last night, all of them vague, about intelligence reports. We need to know more, not necessarily the House but authorities need to know more about the content of those intelligence reports. It is not enough to say that they are there. There has to be scrutiny of them. We need the proof. Then of course Hans Blix will return in mid-February with a further report on Iraqi compliance with inspections.

These are very complex questions. I want to return to where I began. The capacity of the Government of Canada to deal with these complex questions, to mobilize Canadian public opinion and to have support if we need to take hard decisions, would grow immensely if the Government of Canada would take the Parliament of Canada and the people of Canada more into its confidence and would allow, as have previous governments in previous conflicts such as the gulf war, members not just to speak into the wind but to vote on the question as to whether or not Canada should become engaged in these actions internationally.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the right hon. member for his firm information which was very helpful. At the end of his speech he said that he would like the Government of Canada to take parliamentarians into its confidence.

Does the member believe that President Bush has taken the government into its confidence enough in the information provided either to the government or officials?

In listening to the leaders of the Bloc, the NDP and the right hon. gentleman's party, it seems they were saying virtually the same thing but I want to make sure I did not miss anything. Are those three positions roughly the same?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say that the NDP's position is different from that of the Bloc and the Progressive Conservative Party. I think the Alliance position, as I understand it, is also different in terms of a much greater willingness on the part of the Alliance to be prepared to work with the United States, the United Kingdom if it was there, Australia if it was there and a group of others who President Bush called the willing.

I believe and my party believes that there is an obligation on the part of Canada to work within the auspices of the United Nations. We wish that the government would say that and not only work within the United Nations now but continue to work within the United Nations and eschew the possibility of any action outside the United Nations auspices.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think we all appreciate the right hon. member's reflections on questions of foreign policy, although I must say that I do not share the conclusion that he has arrived at on this particular matter.

He says that he and his party will not support Canadian action outside of a second United Nations Security Council resolution.

Did the right hon. member and his party support the allied action of Canada and its NATO partners in Kosovo which happened with the explicit disapproval of the United Nations Security Council after the exercise of the Russian veto?

Would he further care to reflect on the many tragic and historic failures of multilateral institutions to act to enforce security and save lives, such as the United Nations failure to act to intervene and save lives in Rwanda; such as the League of Nations failure to properly confront the rise of German militarism which made that institution obsolete?

Will he not admit that while multilateral institutions, such as the United Nations, are preferable institutions for international action, that sometimes they fail in their mandate to uphold the peace and that in such instances free and responsible democracies, acting collectively, bear the responsibility which organizations like the United Nations sometimes fail properly to understand?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chairman, of course the United Nations and other multinational agencies sometimes fail. That is often because only the toughest questions come to them and it is natural that there will be a rate of failure when they deal only with the toughest questions.

Our responsibility surely is to ensure that wherever possible the United Nations system works, the multilateral system works. We should consequently resist the temptation to be drawn by small groups that might depart from the strength of the multilateral tradition and significantly undermine United Nations activities and indeed increase the rate of its failures.

There is a possibility for the United Nations to work. As I said in my remarks, there is no doubt in my mind that had the United Nations been left without the pressure of the U.S. administration it would not have been as vigorous as it has been. There is no doubt in my mind that the inspectors are there largely because of pressure from the United States.

However I think one of the most important developments in this conflict has been that other nations have encouraged the United States to move within the United Nations. I pray that it will continue to operate within that context. If it does not, I hope Canada will find the courage to say that we will support a multilateral institution and not contribute to its undermining.

With regard to Kosovo, we did support the involvement in Kosovo because at least in the beginning it was an intervention that had been discussed between the United States and NATO.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully and I heard the Conservative leader make the case for Canada acting always within the auspices of the United Nations. Let me say that the New Democratic Party very much agrees with that proposition.

He then went on to suggest that the NDP somehow advocates doing otherwise. I want to ask, in raising a question with the Conservative leader, whether he therefore takes the position that if a second UN resolution mandates the use of force to deal with a continuing crisis of non-compliance, of Iraq not ridding itself of weapons of mass destruction, whether it is his view that the UN would actually dictate to member nations of the United Nations that they are compelled to go to war. If not, does he not recognize that there is a sovereign choice to be made by a sovereign nation as to what role within the auspices and the context of the United Nations any individual country would choose to play?

Finally, in relation to the position advanced again and again by his own party, particularly the defence critic, that Canada's armed forces are badly overstretched, would he not agree that it would be more consistent with our proud tradition and the requirements of the situation for us to play a role in terms of humanitarian aid, in terms of continuing to try to build the conditions for lasting peace, rather than to enter into combat situations where we have a very limited role and a contribution to make in any case?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chairman, accepting the hon. member's hypothetical, of course the United Nations does not, by adopting a resolution of that kind, dictate to members. Members have to make their choices, but I think it is very important that a country like Canada signal clearly that its choice would be, in those circumstances, to support the United Nations, including militarily.

Yes, we are significantly enfeebled by the fact that the government has allowed military spending to plummet, as it has allowed international development spending to plummet. We are considerably enfeebled. Nonetheless, our presence in the United Nations action would be significant. When I was last in Cyprus, the Canadian peacekeeping complement was down to two people, but nonetheless the Canadian flag was there. It was important that the Canadian flag was there so that we were there with more than simply words; we were also there indicating as much of a commitment as we could make.

But it would be our choice, a choice I hope we would signal we would make, to support a United Nations action.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Chairman, the right hon. gentleman made one point which I may not have heard correctly, but he certainly can indicate if I have misunderstood, and that is that we should vigorously search for asylum for Saddam Hussein, obviously somewhere outside of Iraq.

He nods, so I believe that this was part of his statement. In which case, virtually every country that I have been thinking of in the last few minutes would undoubtedly say, “If you wish asylum for Saddam Hussein, why don't you take him yourself?” Is he willing to have Saddam Hussein here in Canada, perhaps in his own riding of Calgary? If so, would he be willing to provide the immunity from prosecution for the crimes against humanity of Saddam Hussein if he did in fact come here, as undoubtedly we will be pushed very strongly if we adopted the right hon. gentleman's proposal?

Could he answer those two questions?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chairman, the minister should not trivialize everything. I believe that it is an important part of the issue now, as it was in the gulf war, to see if there are opportunities for asylum. We raised the question and as foreign minister I raised the question with other countries then.

Would Canada accept Saddam Hussein and offer asylum? No, we would not.

The minister, a former member of the Department of Foreign Affairs, pretends to shrug, pretending not to know why I would answer that way. He knows perfectly well the difficulty of arranging asylum and he knows that it can be done. If news reports are to be believed, there were in fact active discussions regarding asylum in northern Africa in the days prior to the conclusion of the gulf war. It is an option that is worth considering. Canada, with our influence, or at least the influence we used to have in the developing world, is a country that could play an active role in trying to see if that option is open.

[The Chairman]

I propose to take three questions: one from the official opposition, one from the government and one from the New Democratic Party. I hope that each question and response will be less than a minute so that we can move on to the next round.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the hon. member for his remarks and especially for his observation that it is easier to buttonhole the Americans and give them our advice if we have been standing shoulder to shoulder with them, at least on occasion, and have not used the bully pulpit that the Liberal Party sometimes thinks it has to chastise the Americans day in and day out.

I would like to ask the right hon. member about his conclusion that, of all nations, Canada must show respect for the United Nations and its resolutions, yet paragraph 4 of resolution 1441 lays down two tests: that if there are false statements or omissions in Iraq's declaration and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with or co-operate fully in the implementation of this resolution, it will further constitute a material breach.

It seems to me that we want to have respect, and I think we all do, for the United Nations and its resolutions, but there is that 12 year pattern of breaking resolutions that have been put before it, and a further pattern, as the Blix report already says, of further breaking those resolutions. I think it is time to show some respect for the United Nations by saying that it has to adhere to this or else the consequences are coming.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chairman, that decision in fact is to be taken by the 15 member nations of the Security Council. In a sense, the discussion about whether we need one or two resolutions is to some degree artificial if what we are seeking is a unanimous decision of the Security Council. If significant members, particularly members with vetoes in the Security Council, will not accept the mandate of the first resolution, then a second will be necessary. That is simply a practical reality to the United Nations having to act.

The Minister of the Environment has gone. He asked me about immunity. Obviously if there were to be something done with respect to asylum, that very difficult question of immunity would have to be looked at. No one would want to, but it would be preferable to holocaust.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the points the hon. member made when he explained that if the war goes on for too long in Iraq, there will be consequences in the Middle East neighbourhood for our friends in the Middle East, Iraq will be partitioned and the Moslem world will rise up against the Americans. These are very good points.

My question is about the 1991 war, in which U.S. President George Bush Senior had 36 allies. Now George W. Bush is having difficulty getting allies anywhere in the world. There are three countries where only the leaders, but not the populations, are supporting this attack that is planned against Iraq. Sixty per cent of the U.S. population is against the war. Could the hon. member explain why there is such a difference between 1991 and now, when the U.S. has no allies and basically is all by itself in the world?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chairman, one did not need to send inspectors to Kuwait to know the Iraqis were there. The question was very clear. It was easy to mobilize support.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chairman, last June I was in Yugoslavia, where there was a war because of Milosevic. Walking through the streets, one could see buildings that had been destroyed and the bodies of people who had been killed.

I wish to ask the Leader of the Progressive Conservatives whether it is worthwhile to go to Iraq. Children and innocent civilians will be killed, and that will be the price we have to pay to get Saddam Hussein.

If we were to say yes to the war, for example, does this mean giving them permission to march into Baghdad and do as they please? If so, would your party refuse to support the United States? We can know when a war starts but we do not know when and how it will end. There is no longer any control once it has started.

I would like to know the position of the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chairman, we cannot through our failure to act give Saddam Hussein permission to use the weapons at his disposal to commit atrocities toward children and innocent civilians throughout the world.

The former leader of the NDP has just said that Saddam Hussein is a threat that cannot be ignored. There is a reason why he is a threat. It is not just because he is not a nice man, it is because he is a truly dangerous one and probably a man in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

That is why thought must be given to a reaction. A threat like this cannot be ignored.

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

Mr. Chairman, on Saturday, January 18, I took part in a demonstration for peace in Montreal. It was extremely cold out. I spent some time at the rally. There were people of all ages, the young and the not so young, even children and babes in arms. Apparently there were 25,000 people who took part in the demonstration. Organizers had expected between 5,000 and 6,000 people. There was a huge crowd, despite the cold. These people came out not only to protest against war, but to demonstrate in support of peace. There is a big difference. Before taking a stand against war, one must take a stand for peace.

I listened to President Bush's speech yesterday. After talking about the American economy, he started to talk about war. He became animated and passionate. I noticed that the standing ovations that he received from everyone present in that huge hall also became animated and passionate when he spoke about war. It seemed to me as though there was almost an excitement for the United States to go to war.

I just sense in the body language, in the feeling and in his speech that what he wants more than anything else is a chance to go to war. I find that chilling. I find it scary, this feeling that bombs and missiles, smart or not, are going to suddenly bring peace to the world.

I was encouraged that within the United States itself, people are starting to speak out, that a large movement is happening within the United States saying, “Caution, let us beware of war”. This is what Senator Kennedy, whose family cannot be accused of lack of patriotism for their country, said to the National Press Club on January 21:

Surely, we can have effective relationships with other nations without adopting a chip on the shoulder foreign policy, a my way or the highway policy that makes all our goals in the world more difficult to achieve. I continue to be convinced that this is the wrong war at the wrong time. The threat from Iraq is not imminent and it will distract America from the two more immediate threats to our security: the clear and present danger of terrorism and the crisis with North Korea.

He called it embarking on a new unilateralism on the part of President Bush.

If there is a consensus here in the House, it is to say that Saddam Hussein is a brutal and ruthless despot and dictator who has created tremendous havoc within his own country and tremendous hardship for the people in his care. We know that. We certainly do not excuse him.

At the same time, if we are consistent, what do we say about the regime in North Korea? What do we say about the regime in Myanmar? What do we say about the regime in Libya? What do we say about the regime in Zimbabwe? When we are finished turning our sights against Saddam Hussein, do we turn our sights to all the other dictators around the world and go to war, one war after another until we have got rid of them?

I was reading the resolution of the United States congress when the United States congress in September gave the authorization to President Bush to go ahead. This resolution within the United States congress is subject to two conditions.

The first one is that the president must declare to congress that diplomatic efforts to enforce UN resolutions on weapons of mass destruction have failed. The second condition is that the president must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al-Qaeda terrorist network. These are the two conditions.

Did members hear President Bush speak about bin Laden? At one time on all the U.S. networks from the president's mouth there was not one day, one hour that went by without our hearing about bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Suddenly they have disappeared from the scene. We never hear about them any more. Suddenly Saddam Hussein has become bin Laden. He is a terrorist menace. He is going to destroy the United States and the rest of the world.

What about bin Laden? What about North Korea, as Senator Kennedy rightly asked? Senator Kennedy went back to congress and today he has been asking for congress to review its September resolution that gives authorization to President Bush. He said he will introduce a measure requiring President Bush to get a new approval before launching a military strike on Iraq. This was not us Liberals in Canada. It was Senator Kennedy within the congress of the United States, a great patriot if ever there was.

Senator Kennedy said this:

Much has changed in the many months since congress last debated war with Iraq [in September]. UN inspectors are on the ground and making progress, and their work should continue. Osama bin Laden and the Korean nuclear crisis continue to pose far greater threats... [than Iraq].

What is happening to this sudden syndrome, that shifting of position that now Saddam Hussein has become the great new Hitler of the world that will destroy the world overnight?

Last night I was lucky to hear an interview with a French Algerian journalist by the name of Mohamed Issami. He managed to infiltrate the al-Qaeda network in Paris, which is a very prominent al-Qaeda network. He managed to get their trust and get all kinds of their secrets. He has published a book and has said he is not scared to be interviewed, that he will take all the consequences.

He said, “I am a Muslim. I follow my faith very faithfully. My faith is not the faith of Saddam Hussein or al-Qaeda. I do not believe in murder, in killing”.

At the same time he gave this warning. He said that from having been inside an al-Qaeda cell that he has heard from these people themselves that what they wish more than anything else in the world is for the United States to attack Iraq, because this would give them the most wonderful excuse to recruit new young Islamic people, new young terrorists in the making who are training in Chechnya and Afghanistan and other places, to carry on a terrorist war forever, for years and years and years, because they will use any attack on the Muslim world as a religious attack of Christians against Muslims. He said that they will polarize the debate so that young Islamic people feeling despair in the Middle East and elsewhere will join them in this terrible feeling of thinking that the world is white and black, and that unless they go to war and use terror, they will never get a chance.

He warned us to be extremely careful. From an al-Qaeda cell he said that war would be a disastrous consequence for us within the western world.

What does war do? I listen to President Bush. All the B-52s in the world, all the ships and the armaments and the 60,000 troops, what are they going to do? They will bomb Iraq to smithereens. They will destroy and kill. Bombs and missiles do not distinguish between young and old, soldiers and non-soldiers. They destroy and they kill innocent people. They kill young people.

Ten million of Iraq's population are under 18. Some of these people will be destroyed as well in a war.

I do not know if the United States ever listens to our debates, but what we are saying to the people there who feel like us is to let us strive by all means to avoid war. Let us use the United Nations, not to try to convince the other nations that war should happen, but very much the contrary, to let the inspectors continue the work and to use every means at our disposal so that war, if war has to be, and I sure hope not, would be very much the ultimate result and the ultimate weapon. I pray and hope that it never happens that way.

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

Mr. Chairman, it was an interesting linkage that the member drew between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. He recognizes that the coalition and the war on terrorism has successfully wiped out traces of bin Laden, that preparations are now being made for the next phase of the war on terrorism, and this phase is going to be brought to pass by making peace in Iraq.

The member was talking about the many deaths in Iraq that the war would bring to pass. Given the hundreds of thousands of Kurds who have been murdered, the Shi'ites who have been killed, the unnecessary deaths of the elderly, the women and the children, and the constant torture that goes on such as the stoning of women as they have gone back to the old laws, could he compare the number of people who are going to face certain death under the rule of Saddam versus the number of people who may face death in the peacemaking process in the Middle East?

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

Mr. Chairman, that is like saying we should compare one with the other and find out which one produces more numbers.

I could ask the same question of the member. How many people are going to die of famine in Zimbabwe? They say six million people are likely to do so. How many people are going to die under the North Korean regime? How many people are going to die if the North Korean regime, which has been conveniently left alone by the United States, starts using nuclear weapons which, according to Senator Kennedy, who should know because he has all the intelligence reports at his disposal, is far more lethal than the Saddam Hussein regime? What do we do with them?

At some point we have to agree that the United Nations is the arm that will eventually arrive at the result of deposing dictators. It may take more time. It took time with Mobutu. It took time with every dictator in the world. We cannot compare the situation in Iraq today to what happened with Hitler. That is a total misreading of history. There were 80 million people in Germany with armaments beyond compare who invaded countries much weaker than theirs.

In Iraq the opposite is happening. Iraq has been practically disarmed. It is a nation that is poor and completely unable to attack the United States tomorrow morning. It is a figment of people's imaginations. As Senator Kennedy suggested, North Korea is much more likely to start a nuclear war than is Saddam Hussein.

Why do we leave it alone? Why do we leave bin Laden alone? He is still free to roam, free to practise terror. Why do we leave alone the regime of the old Burma, Myanmar? Why are we so selective that suddenly we count people, that war is going to produce less deaths, so let us go to war? What happens if it produces many more than the number of people that would be saved? How can the member predict in advance how many thousands of people are going to die when the bombs start to fall? I would not like to be there.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I listened to my colleague's speech with interest. I would describe his speech as very pacifist, which is a bit how I see his personality. He is someone who believes in peace and I think that this is good. He also spoke in favour of the UN, and on this, we agree.

He said that we must give peace every chance; there are different options available to the UN. My party and I agree that we need a second UN resolution to judge whether or not resolution 1441 has been breached and to set out a series of actions to follow up on the resolution.

If he does support peace, he must give it as many chances as possible. For us, this means a second UN resolution. His government's position does not seem to include this for now. Is his opinion compatible with the position of his government, and would he prefer a second UN resolution before any military action?

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

Mr. Chairman, I talked very openly about this with the Prime Minister. Our position is very clear. We support Resolution 1441.

Resolution 1441 will return before the 15 members of the Security Council on February 5. Mr. Blix will produce a report. Before the United States can persuade the rest of the world to go to war against Iraq and implement the measures set out in Resolution 1441, it must persuade China, Russia, France, Germany and all the other countries that do not want war.

This is the first step. I think that when this issue is debated by the Security Council, the chances of the United States convincing the other members are very slim. So they will have to decide if they will go to war together with the British. I hope that our country will decide, at that time, not to go to war because this decision will not have the support of the United Nations.

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

Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for a thoughtful and compassionate speech.

I would like to briefly comment on the question asked by my colleague from the Canadian Alliance. It reminded me of the time that Madeleine Albright was being interviewed by a journalist named Lesley Stahl. She was asked about the possibility that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children might die as a result of the economic sanctions imposed on the people of Iraq. She was asked whether she was prepared to accept the death of hundreds of thousands of children. She paused and said that yes, that was a price worth paying. What an appalling response. We know that those children have died.

I want to ask the hon. member, for whom I have great respect, a question that I put to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and which he did not answer, and has not answered yet. In the event that the government of this country decides to participate in the military coalition either under the framework of the United Nations or as a member of the coalition of the willing, God help us, is it the position of this member that the House of Commons should have an opportunity not just to debate this profoundly important issue of life and death, but also have the opportunity to vote on that question?

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

Mr. Chairman, that would be my choice.