Debates of Jan. 29th, 2003

Iraq

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Chairman, I am encouraged with the position of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs for taking a firm stand on Iraq and for continuing to call for a multilateral solution to the crises. However, I would encourage them to become more proactive in seeking a negotiated peaceful solution in Iraq.

Canada is committed to UN Security Council resolution 1441 and the disarmament of the Iraqi regime. Further, Canada and the international community are committed to ensuring global peace and security. However, given that there is no imminent threat to the Middle East or to the United States from Iraq, one must seek other rationale if the hunt for the axis of evil driving the call to war is the American determination to secure supremacy over the region. Or is this war about gaining control over the world's second largest oil reserves?

The premise for the U.S. call to war began as a need for regime change. Then the focus shifted to disarmament and the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. Once more the U.S. is suggesting regime change through a pre-emptive military action to topple Saddam Hussein. Where is the necessity of self-defence?

Pre-emptive action in the absence of an imminent threat is illegal. The war against Iraq, which now seems inevitable, is not based on established facts, but on speculation; speculation about potential developments that may or may not occur; speculation on what Iraq may or may not do. Fear of what may happen is not a reason to go to war. The war rhetoric has now shifted from what may happen to the notion that America is under attack or that the world stability is at stake. This is an illusion.

First, military action in Iraq would not be a war of defence. An attack on Iraq would be pre-emptive on the basis of speculation. This has no precedence in international law.

Second, the tyranny of Saddam Hussein toward his own people cannot be a precursor for war. We must seek other options. The very nature of international society, and international laws and norms are at stake. It is the process that is important and it is being threatened by a pre-emptive war by the United States.

Let me declare that Iraq cannot be bombed into democracy. Democracies are not instilled, rather, they develop over decades, as they did in the west.

The United States has made its intentions clear. If there is a conflict they will take control of Iraq as custodians. Canada and Canadians are not interested in a new form of colonialism. We do not want to return to a time of imperial rule, when kings are installed and regimes are changed at whim.

Canada's role is and always has been to provide the environment for democratic development. As Canadians our hope is that democracy will flourish in Iraq. This will not occur as a result of a bombing campaign.

Iraq is a country sharply divided. There is no viable political alternative in sight and internal opposition has been fiercely crushed. Iraq is also a crippled nation. The efforts to regime change Saddam Hussein through sanctions and the last war have cost a million Iraqi lives. Iraqi civilians, infrastructure, including roads, bridges and railroads are shattered. Water purification systems, sewage treatment, electricity grids, and the oil industry have been battered. Water and soil are contaminated with depleted uranium from the gulf war. A once independent civilian economy has been destroyed.

A war on Iraq would cause further suffering to the Iraqi people. A military invasion could lead to as many as 500,000 dead and 900,000 refugees who will require food and shelter. Hospitals in Iraq cannot accommodate any more wounded. This is a truly grave humanitarian crisis.

I have witnessed the destruction of Iraq at first hand. Some have been critical of my recent trip to Iraq. I would like to clarify that my opposition to this war must not be seen as a defence of the Iraqi regime. I am fully aware of the ruthless acts of inhumanity perpetrated by this totalitarian regime. I understand the historical context: the Iran-Iraq war, the chemical attacks on the Kurdish people, and the invasion of Kuwait. Mine is not a defence of the regime. My sympathies lie with the Iraqi people who continue to bear the human impact of the UN sanctions. One million people have been killed, nearly 60% of them children, as a result of the sanctions. UNICEF estimates that 5,000 to 6,000 children die every month in Iraq. This is unacceptable and that is why the UN world food program director in Iraq and the UN humanitarian coordinator resigned in February 2000. This is also the reason that Mr. Halliday, the former UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, resigned in 1998: to protest against the sanctions. I have said this before and I will say it again. A war in Iraq would be an unprovoked war against children.

The thousands of letters I have received from Canadians, from Whitehorse to Nova Scotia, reflect these views. Social movements, human rights organizations and civil society organizations are united in their opposition to this war. Canadians have made it clear they do not want a war on Iraq.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, Canada seeks a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis. Canada must continue to work through the United Nations for a peaceful resolution. We must stand with the world community to oppose this war. We must stop this rhetoric about war and begin meaningful talks for peace.

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

Madam Chairman, I do not doubt the hon. member's concern about this issue, but I must, on behalf of many Canadians, doubt her sound judgment, both in her remarks this evening and in her very unfortunate recent trip to Baghdad, where she met with apparently senior officials in one of the most tyrannical regimes in the world. That is not my partisan view. It is the position taken by every human rights organization in the world that has condemned the Saddam Hussein regime as one of the most tyrannical.

This member really does not understand. Perhaps she should have listened to her hon. colleague, the member for Ottawa--Nepean, who quoted Winston Churchill on the kind of moral confusion created by appeasers.

She was quoted from Iraq speaking positively about assurances she had been given by senior government officials in Iraq that the regime would clean up its human rights record and review its laws and its frequent resort to capital punishment. I wonder if she could tell us, did she raise the cases of women being beheaded in public squares in Iraq recently for unproven charges of prostitution? Did she raise the systemic abuse of women and children who are related to dissidents? Did she raise the cases of children who were tortured in front of their parents by the Iraqi secret police in order to extract information? Did she raise any of these questions?

Further, the hon. member says that she is terribly concerned about international law and is opposed to any pre-emptive action. Is she not aware that in this conflict the violator of international law is the Iraqi regime? Is she not aware when she speaks of pre-emptive strikes that in fact the military action being contemplated to enforce resolution 1441 and 15 predecessor UN Security Council resolutions in fact would be a continuation of the hostilities suspended by the instrument of a ceasefire in 1991, to which the Iraqi government was a party and in which it committed to a total disarmament under UN supervision? In other words, does she not understand that, legally speaking, the gulf war of 1990 is not over? There is no peace treaty. There is a ceasefire. It was Saddam Hussein who started that conflict. Is she not aware that this tyrant is in violation of every human rights covenant under the aegis of international law of 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions? How can she possibly suggest that responsible democratic allies of Canada are violating international law when in fact it is international law that they are seeking to impose? If she is so concerned about international law, why does she not support efforts to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1441?

Finally, if she is opposed to sanctions and opposed to the use of force to ensure compliance with the resolutions, what then does she propose, more peace missions to talk to Saddam Hussein's minions in Baghdad? Is that how she suggests the Iraqi regime will suddenly come to terms with international law?

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West—Mississauga, ON]

Madam Chairman, I do not think that the condescending tone of the numerous questions were lost on anybody in the House.

However, since there were so many questions, perhaps I will deal with one issue: the issue of my mission in Baghdad, or my trip, or whatever the hon. member wants to call it.

I have heard the criticisms. In fact, I think I have been called Hanoi Jane.

[An hon. member]

Baghdad Beaumier.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West—Mississauga, ON]

Baghdad Beaumier, Hanoi Jane, and I know the hon. member is young and he can remember only little bits of history, however, if we recall, Hanoi Jane was absolutely right: Both the United States government and the leader of the war in Vietnam have acknowledged that the war was wrong, and Canada did not participate in that war.

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

Madam Chairman, I would like to seek a clarification from the hon. member as to her position. She said categorically: no war on the people of Iraq. She has spoken eloquently of the impact economic sanctions already have had on the people of Iraq. She, like I, has been in a hospital in Baghdad and has seen the emaciated children and so on. She knows that there would be hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people dying. Whether or not Saddam Hussein would be a victim of this, one does not know. There was a war in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden is still at large. No one knows where he is. We know that one of the untold horrors of that war in Afghanistan was the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. No one talks about those people, as if somehow their lives are not as valuable.

My question for the member from Mississauga is about what her position is with respect to the possibility that there may be a UN resolution supporting military action. We recall what happened in the gulf war. I remember it very well. There were two countries that voted against that war in 1991. One was Cuba. The other was Yemen, on the Security Council. I remember very well that the U.S. ambassador turned to the Yemeni ambassador and said, “That will be the most expensive vote you have ever cast”. The next day the United States cut every penny of the $72 million in aid to Yemen.

The ambassador of Mauritius, another country that sits now on the Security Council, had the audacity to actually question the possibility of a military strike on the people of Iraq. He was recalled by his government, which told him that if he did not shut up the United States would cut off the country's aid.

That is the kind of pressure and intimidation that we see in the Security Council. If that is successful and if the Security Council supports a resolution, my party, I am very proud to say, and our leader Jack Layton, have said that we will not support that war, that Canada should play a different role.

What is the position of the hon. member in those circumstances? Does she stand with thousands and thousands of her constituents in saying no war on the people of Iraq or does she support the position of the member from London earlier who said yes, that in that case it would be no vote, no vote, off we go to war?

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West—Mississauga, ON]

Madam Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his question, I think. I believe he is trying to line up the sides here.

However, we went to Kosovo based on the “fact” that there were mass graves. That turned out not to be true. Unless we can show conclusively that not only does Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction but is about to use them or is in the process of attacking another sovereign nation, my vote is no.

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

Madam Chairman, I just want to commend my colleagues from the NDP for the virtue of consistency, because at least its leader is being consistent with the position of its leader in 1939 when he voted against the invocation of war against Germany, as the CCF.

I will narrow it down and ask my friend one very clear question. If she is opposed to the United Nations sanctions regime in Iraq, if she wants the sanctions lifted, and if she is opposed to any hypothetical use of force even if sanctioned by the United Nations, what then does she propose as a means for the international community to compel the Iraqi regime to respect its obligations and the international law which she holds in such high regard?

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West—Mississauga, ON]

Madam Chairman, we are talking about suppositions. I would like the member to show me without a doubt that Saddam Hussein has these weapons of mass destruction to which he continues to refer.

Not only do I oppose the economic sanctions against Iraq, an all party parliamentary standing committee on foreign affairs, including members of the Alliance Party, voted unanimously for the de-linking of sanctions against Iraq.

What do I propose to do? I think we need to continue to monitor Iraq. We need to help the people re-establish their society and empower the people to overthrow the regime from within. Change has to come from within, not from the outside forces, or it will not last.

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

Madam Chairman, does the hon. member agree there should be a vote in the House before Canadian Forces are sent off to war?

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West—Mississauga, ON]

Madam Chairman, yes I do.

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

Madam Chairman, it is with a sense of futility, despair, anger and anguish that I participate in the debate this evening. I am very pleased to be able to follow the course of the debate and, in particular, to follow the eloquent remarks of my colleague, the member for Halifax and our spokesperson on the Middle East, who spoke earlier this evening on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues.

Why is it that I say futility, anger and despair? Fundamentally, it is for two reasons. First, because I have to ask where these debates lead. I have participated in many of these take note debates over the years. I find it absolutely unbelievable that we cannot persuade the government that it has an obligation to the people that it says it represents, to allow those people to exercise their right to cast a vote on this most fundamental question of whether or not men and women will go off to war.

I have asked now three or four Liberal members of Parliament and have received three or four different answers as to whether or not there should be a vote on this issue.

I want to be very clear, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, that we demand that rather than this charade of a take note debate that we be allowed to speak out and to vote on behalf of the people we have the honour of representing in this debate.

I remember in 1990 and 1991 when the Liberals were in opposition and Lloyd Axworthy was the foreign affairs spokesperson at the time. I remember working with Lloyd Axworthy hand in hand demanding that the Conservatives allow a vote. Indeed, to their credit, they did. We had that vote then. What has changed since the Liberals were in opposition in 1990?

The other point I have to note, and this point was made eloquently by our newly elected leader, Jack Layton, is that it is tragic to witness that effectively we have no real choice between the position of the official opposition and the government on this basic and fundamental issue. He made that point. If we need any evidence of that, here is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say, the so-called opposition on this issue. He said yesterday:

We should not rule out any options. The Prime Minister's position today seems to be exactly our position.

So much for opposition. They are in bed together. What an unholy alliance between the Liberals and the Canadian Alliance.

I feel a sense of futility in this debate because where does it ultimately lead? We know the government will ignore the voices of elected representatives and ignore the growing voices of people from coast to coast to coast in Canada who are speaking out against war.

Last month it was remarkable that in cities and communities across this land, including, for the first time, in Iqaluit, Canadians, young and old, students, trade unionists, peace activists, raging grannies, academics, ordinary citizens, mothers, fathers concerned about the future of this planet, were speaking out against war.

Although I must say I regret this fact, I am very proud of the fact that we as New Democrats stand alone in saying to our government, no to any war in Iraq.

As my colleague, the member for Halifax, said eloquently earlier, drop the sanctions, do not drop the bombs. That is our position.

I say that I approach this with a sense of futility as well because of how sad it was to watch George Bush speaking last night with the rabid applause of members from both sides of the house. What a pathetic spectacle, particularly for those of us who recall that the democrats in the last war in the gulf put up a strong and eloquent resistance. The American people though are speaking out on this issue.

However as I watched George Bush I felt a sense of horror and foreboding because it was crystal clear that George Bush was absolutely determined to wage war on the people of Iraq with or without the United Nations. He is dictating to the UN by saying, “We will come on February 5. We will show you our evidence. If you accept it, great, but if you do not, tough luck. We rule the world and we will put together a coalition of the will”.

Let us hope that Canada, our government and our Prime Minister will have the courage to stand and represent the people of this country and say that we will not be part of any such coalition, that we stand for peace, for justice and not for war. Lest there be any doubt whatsoever about our position with respect to the regime of Saddam Hussein, we have denounced this. My colleague, the member for Halifax, denounced that regime on many occasions. I might say that we have been far more consistent than the United States and many others.

I will never forget 1988. I was in Geneva at the United Nations commission on human rights shortly after Saddam Hussein had gassed the Kurds in Halabja. However, guess what? The silence of the United States and of Canada was shamefully deafening at that time. Where were they then? Who was it that supplied the precursors of the biological and chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s? I think it was the same people who were supporting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan around the same time. The hypocrisy is absolutely unbelievable.

Bush is prepared to go to war. He does not care about the United Nations nor about our position in Canada. He has Tony Blair supporting him and Australia, apparently, but, for God's sake, why can our government not stand up? What happened to the tradition of that party at one point, the Pearson tradition that led to a well deserved Nobel prize? Shamefully, once again, it is gone.

The tragedy of the Iraqi people is that they already have suffered so terribly from economic sanctions that have been clearly documented by Denis Halliday, Hans von Sponeck and others. We in the New Democratic Party have joined with Canadians in calling for the lifting of those economic sanctions. What better way to release the people of Iraq from the pain, the suffering, the hunger and the humiliation to which they are now subjected than to give them the tools, hopefully, to restore democracy and human rights, and to rebuild their shattered lives and the infrastructure?

Lest anyone asks whether we have spoken out on this, indeed we have. I was in Baghdad in May participating in a conference with Tariq Aziz sitting just a few feet away. I, at that conference, speaking on behalf of my colleagues, accused his regime of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and said that he must be brought to justice. That is our position, but we also say that there must not be a war and that even if the Security Council is bullied or bribed into supporting a war, Canada has an option. It has the option of working for peace, of helping to rebuild after another devastating war. I cannot even imagine it.

They are going to use depleted uranium once again. We have seen the impact of that already. I have seen the children in Basra who were born with terrible congenital deformities.

In closing, I want to once again, on behalf of my colleagues, say that we stand in solidarity with the people of this country. We hope there will be hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast joining with us on February 15, the next demonstrations, with our leader, Jack Layton, and with every member of our caucus.

We will be everywhere in Canada, Quebec and all the regions to say no to war and yes to peace.

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

Madam Chairman, the member and I disagree on a lot of simple points of fact but I do not suppose we can resolve them here. However let me ask him about the theoretical basis for his objection to apparently any form of military action to force compliance of the various United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Is the member a pacifist? Does he believe that the use of military force is ever called for? I think this is an entirely legitimate question. This is not a reductio ad absurdum . The leader of the CCF in 1939 took what some characterized as a courageous position, while I would characterize it as morally bankrupt position, of saying that military force ought not to have been used against the Nazi regime.

I would like to know whether the member in particular and his party in general believe that military force can ever be justified and, if so, under what circumstances.

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

Madam Chairman, of course. In fact, one need only look at the tyranny of Hitler and the Nazis in World War II. I was not alive during that time, but I am very proud of the fact that, while the leader of the party at the time, J.S. Woodsworth, took a position of conscience as a pacifist, many others, including the elected representatives present in the House, strongly supported that fight against tyranny.

I am not a pacifist. I would point out that I was among those who called for the international community to intervene in Rwanda, and the world stood by. I was among those who called for the international community to intervene before the slaughter in East Timor, and the world stood by.

In answer to the hon. member's question, no, I am not a pacifist. However I have to ask, what would be achieved by a massive military assault on the hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq who have already suffered? Not only would it be a humanitarian and environmental disaster, it would be in flagrant violation of international law. International law simply does not allow for a pre-emptive strike to avoid the possibility that there might be some sort of an attack. Imagine the precedent that would set. India, Pakistan, Russia and Chechnya, who knows what else.

[An hon. member]

Israel.

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

Israel, absolutely.

When we talk about respect for UN resolutions, let us end the hypocrisy and recognize that if the United States were serious about respect for United Nations resolutions, it would be putting far more pressure on the Israeli government to finally end the illegal, dehumanizing, brutal occupation of Palestine and to allow the Palestinian people to have their state, living in peaceful co-existence with the state of Israel as well.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Chairman, I just want to follow up on the UN resolutions which have been mentioned a number of times tonight. In fact, the member just mentioned a number of outstanding resolutions that are not enforced and how this weakens the credibility of the United Nations. I know the member is a strong supporter of the United Nations.

How do we solve this problem? Should the United Nations not have passed those resolutions? How would the member suggest they be enforced if he suggests they be enforced?

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

Madam Chairman, we strongly support resolution 1441, there is no question about that, just as we support resolutions 242, 338 and so many of the other resolutions that have been adopted, just as we support resolution 687, which, by the way, calls for regional disarmament in the Middle East and our ultimate objective of global eradication of all weapons of mass destruction.

We believe deeply in multilateral institutions. The tragedy here is that the United States, probably more than any other nation in the world today, is showing total contempt for multilateralism, whether it is on the international criminal court, landmines, Kyoto, the ABM treaty or biological weapons.

The United States is a country that uses the United Nations when it can but when the United Nations is not prepared to go its way, it says to hell with the United Nations. We say that approach is one that we are not prepared to accept, least of all when it will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

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

Madam Chairman, I have to respond to the complete red herring about the alleged inconsistency of the application of UN resolutions. The member mentions 242 and 338 which impose obligations on all parties in the Middle East, not just on Israel, and which do not require the return of all the territories prior to the 1967 war. One could have a debate all night about that. It is disingenuous to draw a parallel between those resolutions and the explicit resolution 1441 about which there really is no debate of its intent.

The member is opposed to sanctions on Iraq. He wants to lift them. He is opposed to any use of force, even if authorized by the UN Security Council, to compel compliance. What then does he propose as a means to compel this dictator to comply with international obligations, with international law, and to prove disarmament? If not economic sanctions, if not military force--clearly diplomacy has not worked after 12 years--what does he concretely propose as an alternative?

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

Madam Chairman, I would take issue with the suggestion of the hon. member that somehow there has been no progress under the system of inspections by the United Nations. I do not know if the hon. member heard Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency, who said that there is no evidence whatsoever of any nuclear weapons in Iraq. That was a success story because quite clearly, and I accept what the member was saying, there was some evidence that there were some preparations being made there. The inspections worked.

According to Scott Ritter, the former chief weapons inspector of the United Nations, inspections worked significantly as well in the area of chemical and biological weapons. Let us not forget one of the reasons that inspections ultimately broke down was because the United States, through the CIA, was using the inspectors for illegitimate purposes. I think the hon. member is aware of that as well. Rolf Ekeus, who was the very respected Swedish head of the inspection program, has recently documented that as well.

We must listen to Blix and ElBaradei who have said they need more time to do their work properly.

Why the rush to war? And ultimately, if there were a war, if people were killed, what would be next? What would it mean, ultimately, for the stability of that region? And finally, what on earth does this particular regime have to do with the fight against terrorism? Bush last night was alleging there was some link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, which shows that there is not the slightest comprehension of the nature of al-Qaeda.

We in the New Democratic Party, our leader Jack Layton, our caucus, and members at our convention last weekend, once again join with Canadians across this land in saying, “no to war, non à la guerre”.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Chairman, I have one very brief question. Is it not true that there was more dismantling and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a result of the weapons inspection process from 1992 to 1999 than there was in the entire gulf war?

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

Madam Chairman, the short answer is, absolutely, that observation is accurate. The system was working effectively. In 1998 the inspectors were forced to withdraw because of a threat to bomb, which ultimately was carried out, not, by the way, under the auspices of the United Nations and, I regret to say, with the full support of the Liberal government.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Madam Chairman, this debate on Iraq is generating a great deal of passion and interest. The stakes are high. There is a serious possibility that the United States, and whatever allies they can bring on board if they cannot get the UN Security Council's approval, will unilaterally declare war on Iraq.

Like many of my colleagues, I have received hundreds of messages and calls on this issue from people in my riding. I would like to thank and congratulate theese people for taking the time to contact me on this issue. I will read a few of these documents.

I have here a letter from a woman by the name of Josée, whose family name I will not mention:

I am writing to you as the member for my riding to voice my vigorous opposition to war against Iraq. I believe:

(1) that the very principle of a preventive war is an aberration and is detrimental to the whole world and that negotiated solutions must always be favoured;

(2) that there is no evidence that this war would prevent anything whatsoever and that it might instead poison already bad relations between that region and the western world;

(3) that this war will first and foremost serve the political and economic interests of the United States;

Consequently, I think that our government has a duty to take a clear stand against this war and to bring all the pressure necessary to bear at the international level to avert it.

I do hope the Canadian government will remember that it must represent the Canada population, which is against this war.

I would like to read a second message that comes from a person who lives on Jumonville Street and whose name is Amélie:

You know better than anyone that the United States is preparing to launch an attack against Iraq. This intervention will have a serious impact on the people of Iraq—

According to the United Nations, between 142,000 and 206,000 people died in the gulf war. Since 1991, the embargo on Iraq has led to the death of more than 500,000 children—

Furthermore, the United Nations estimates that 23 million people will need food aid for more than one year after a military intervention—

You have a responsibility to find non-violent solutions to this conflict. What will you do to show that you oppose the war and violence? Will you be an example for my child and for future generations?

Her position can be boiled down to four points:

No to Canada's participation in the war, even with a Security Council resolution.

Yes to a free vote in Canada's Parliament.

No to the United States' war effort.

Yes to the end of sanctions that are killing the Iraqi population.

I have another letter from a couple, Denis and Sylvie, who live on Vendéens Avenue, in Anjou:

As Canadian citizens and residents of Anjou, we staunchly oppose Canada's participation in a war against Iraq. As our riding's representative, we ask that you pressure Parliament to:

(1) Clearly announce Canada's position in the event of a declaration of war by the United States against Iraq without a mandate from the UN—

(2) Stop the increasingly automatic alignment of our policy with U.S. policy—

(3) Freeze and even decrease the defence budget—

And the message continues.

I will not say that I agree one hundred percent with all of these requests, but I can say that I have not received one message saying the opposite. Of the hundreds of messages we received, none said that Canada should immediately ally itself with the United States, with or without the UN, and go to war against Iraq. None of the messages said that.

I must reflect this view, which is very widely shared, particularly by my constituents and by Quebeckers, and people from the Montreal area.

What also makes me want to take part in this evening's debate is the speech delivered by Mr. Bush yesterday evening, which followed the tabling, on Monday, of the inspection teams' report.

What struck me in Mr. Bush's speech is that the U.S. President spoke constantly of war, threats and the use of force. He advocated unilateral action and preventive strikes. He donned the mantle of patriotism. Last night, he even sounded like a preacher at the end of his speech. Let me read the closing paragraph of his speech.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know--we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history.

May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.

I think they have to be very conceited to think of themselves as God's representatives and chosen ones on earth, being responsible, as Heaven's intermediaries, for bringing freedom to the poor ignorants who do not have the good fortune to be living in the United States.

Mr. Bush and the American Republicans do not have much legitimacy to act as international referees and vigilantes. After barely managing to get elected in their own country two years ago, they have not been very successful from an economic point of view and in the area of rights, on the contrary. Moreover, they are ringing up a deficit.

What gives them the right to tell the world what to do? Mr. Bush did not even get half of the votes of half of the U.S. voters. Reminding our friends south of the border that they should do their democratic homework at home before claiming to be the agents of democracy in the world is not being anti-American. The Bush administration did not get any mandate from a majority of Americans, the UN, or Canadians to wage war against anyone.

The option before us as Canadians is to work for peace within the UN framework—making use of the timeframes involved, as it seems there may be a few weeks of inspection left—to suggest approaches along the lines of international cooperation. There are other kinds of inspections that might be contemplated, if the others get nowhere.

It is,however, up to the Security Council to decide. In my opinion, there should be another debate within a few weeks and another resolution should be adopted and examined by all member states, all member states on the Security Council and all parliaments, including ours. Then we shall see what the best approach is.

I think that if we can move away from what we heard in last night's speech, which leads straight to war unilaterally, we could look at other approaches, such as stepping up cooperative programs and measures promoting dialogue with a number of countries. I feel that Canada has a good international reputation and it would be in all our best interests to work toward this.

Moreover, here in this country, in the United States, and in Europe and everywhere else in the world, we have many allies who would support us and stand by us if we took that direction, for it is the path of dignity and responsibility, and we would retain the confidence of the Canadian people.

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

Madam Chairman, tonight we have been treated to a strange spectacle. We are here to discuss the possibility of a war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and have just heard an attack against the President of the United States. Perhaps the hon. member does not agree with UN resolution 1441.

Does he agree with the very clear resolution, which makes a show of strength against Saddam Hussein possible if he does not accept the resolution? Does he agree with the resolution?

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Madam Chairman, we are working within the framework of the UN and of the Security Council resolution. That is what I explained at the beginning. I am happy that the Prime Minister of Canada, through his dialogue with the President of the United States in September, contributed with other leaders to convincing Mr. Bush to let the Security Council deal with the situation.

At the time, there appeared to be a very real possibility that the U.S. would move alone to solve the so-called Iraqi problem. The Americans accepted to go through the UN. Resolution 1441 was adopted, but the process does not end there. The Security Council remains seized of the matter. Inspections have been carried out. There has been a report stating that the work is in progress. As regards nuclear weapons, a monitoring system has now been set up throughout Iraq, based on Monday's report.

As for chemical and biological weapons, there have been hundreds of inspections in hundreds of sites. There is work to be done. Iraq has been asked to continue to cooperate and to improve its cooperation. We need time. The Secretary General of the UN has asked for more time. I think that this is only reasonable.

As well, we might give some thought, when other reports are tabled in a few weeks, to beefing up the inspection system, by sending multinational military contingents along with the inspectors. Suggestions that have been made by people in positions who had observed many such conflict situations. The inspections could be backed up with more muscle before moving on to the thought of war.

When a decision is made to go to war, whether by the Security Council or by our American neighbours, we cannot know what all the consequences of this decision will be. It is all very fine to say that the bombing raids will be televised and so on, but will this change the situation in the slightest? What happened in Afghanistan? Did bombing Afghanistan change the mind of a single Taliban? Many people certainly lost their lives, but no change was made in the situation.

I do not think this is the way to go in Irak either, believing that this kind of problem can be settled with bombs. Bombs do not change anyone's mindset, all they do is cause damage and widen the gaps between peoples, nations and civilizations. There are other ways of achieving concrete results, but using peaceable means for as long as possible.