Debates of Jan. 29th, 2003

Iraq

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

Madam Chairman, the point I am really trying to make here without getting into all of the details the member raised is the fact that obviously concerns had been raised by the arms inspectors at the time even before the U.S. had made any clear direction that it would go ahead with the bombing of Iraq.

The fact was that a great amount of roadblocks were placed by the Iraqi regime in front of the arms inspectors and they were not able to do their job. The fact was that there was no forthright honesty as to where some of the arms were being stashed away or being built up. There were a lot of concerns and tension was rising to levels where others were concerned enough to get involved because they felt the arms inspectors were not able to do their job effectively.

That is the point here. The regime has not been forthcoming at all when it comes to complying with UN resolutions, and that is why we are where we are today. Even now with resolution 1441 we are still dealing with many violations on behalf of Iraq. That is why I said that hopefully we can resolve this still through the UN and through the process and direction that we have been heading in.

We will have to ask ourselves a question over the next little while as more evidence becomes clear as to what Canada's role will be. I shared the experience of my family and others whom I see around the world. We cannot stand idly by and let these things happen and have these hardships take place, especially when we are lucky to live in a free and democratic society. Sometimes action is required. Hopefully military action will not be necessary but that is a reality we have to be prepared for.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Chairman, it needs to be said that no member from any political party in the House has suggested for one single moment that we should sit by and do nothing about the concerns with respect to weapons of mass destruction and the potential for them to be still in the hands of Saddam Hussein.

It is very important for us to acknowledge that during the weapons inspection process that took place leading up to the then evacuation in 1998 because of U.S. military aggression, that in fact the inspectors gave testimony. It is a matter of public record that somewhere between 96% and 98% of the weapons of mass destruction were destroyed in that country. To now paint the picture of there being no success with the weapons inspection process does not seem to be very consistent with the facts.

Is the member to some extent not simply reflecting the unending barrage of propaganda coming from the U.S.? As has been said by so many members here tonight, the U.S. seems hell-bent on proceeding with an attack on Iraq in spite of the evidence that the weapons inspection process, while frustrating, is nevertheless working as it needs to be.

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

Madam Chairman, the process had been working for a while but as I said, the process broke down, regardless of what type of aggression the member points out. The fact is that many of the arms inspectors were not able to do their jobs and with the heightened tension left that particular country. Over the course of the last number of years, while there have been no arms inspectors present in Iraq, there is evidence pointing to the fact that there has been further buildup again. Unfortunately the demilitarization has been reversed, and it has begun to build up some of its military capability.

We are going to see whether or not the hon. member trusts the information of the United States. A report is going to be presented to the UN by Colin Powell. We basically can take the facts at face value to see if we want to trust that information or not. We also will hear shortly from Hans Blix with his final report and see whether or not there has been a further buildup in that country particularly of military capability.

Unfortunately, I think that ultimately, as much as we would like to agree with the hon. member and say that the arms inspectors had huge levels of success, that would not be factual either. Obviously the process was beginning to be reversed close to the end of the 1990s and now we are seeing that it actually has taken a turn for the worse.

We will see what the results will be. The initial report that Hans Blix came out with says that there have been some serious questions raised as to the current capability of Iraq and how much Iraq has been able to produce over the course of the last number of years. I look forward to hearing what the U.S. is going to say, as well as what the further report of the arms inspectors will be in the future.

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

Madam Chairman, my colleague mentioned his parents' experience in Uganda and the atrocious violations of human rights that took place there without United Nations intervention. As a matter of fact, as the member would know, when Idi Amin tried to unlawfully expand his territory into Tanzania, there was still no intervention by the United Nations. When that country finally began to retaliate to protect itself and moved into Uganda, resulting in the final ouster of Idi Amin, it was rebuked by a UN resolution for taking action against Uganda.

Our colleague mentioned the faith of Islam and the Muslim community. Often a missing dimension of state craft is an understanding of the religious factors at play. So many atrocities have happened against Muslim people, unprotected by the UN in a variety of cases.

[An hon. member]

Kosovo.

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

Kosovo is another clear example.

Is there a sense of distrust in the Muslim community in Canada toward the United Nations, or would that community embrace the UN in as high esteem as most other Canadians do?

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

Madam Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his thoughtful question. It would be difficult for me to blanket the entire Islamic community in Canada as either supporting the UN or not, but I have had it communicated to me by a number of different members, some in my own community, the Ismaili community, that they do not quite understand why the UN acts in certain cases and obviously not in others.

In the past there have been some positive influences on the UN from the wider Islamic community and there has been some action. However, there have been some countries where there has been no action, where those particular Muslims, especially if we think of Kosovo and other places around the world, are very suspect of what the interests of the UN are and what constitutes its action and non-action.

It is a valid point. Although I would not care to blanket the whole Islamic community, I think there is definitely some concern as to how action has been taken in the past.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Chairman, we have had a very good debate here this evening on this issue and although it will not be concluded with a vote there is always a possibility that as things evolve we will at some point be asked to stand up.

I will speak a little bit, without repeating things that have been spoken about by colleagues on both sides of the House, on two or three perspectives on this issue: Canada's role at this time in history and Canada's role leading up to the present. I tend to view it as a continuity.

Some around the House have suggested that Canada is changing in the way it is operating internationally. In my view, I do not think Canada has changed at all. We have a consistent record of peacekeeping, a consistent record of peacemaking where necessary and a consistent record of participation in collective security initiatives at the UN and with NATO. We have a record that goes back to Korea, the Middle East, Congo, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo. Should Canada be called upon to contribute to a collective security action in Iraq again I am very confident that Canada will play a role.

There are of course some prerequisites before that happens but I am sure Canadians will accept that Canada must continue to play a role with the United Nations and with NATO, albeit in different circumstances and with different preconditions. We have done it before and we will do it again.

One of the members of the New Democratic Party asked whatever happened to Lester Pearson's way of doing things. He was one of our great Canadians who won a peacekeeping medal. My recollection is that when he won the peacekeeping medal it followed Canada's placement of its forces into the Gaza Strip in the Middle East for peacekeeping purposes.

Canadians' use of their military for collective security is not new. It is continuing. I think that essentially is the issue we are being asked to address here.

I want to make three points, which may have been discussed by others, but perhaps not, but I want to make sure that perspective is on the record. In my view, if something matures--and I will not call it a war if it is a war, it will be a collective security action--it will not have evolved out of 9/11 but out of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, what we called the gulf war of 11 or 12 years ago. This is, in a sense, unfinished business from that war. At the conclusion of that military engagement Iraq agreed to disarm.

At this time, most observers believe Iraq has not disarmed. At this time there are inspectors continuing the work, as has been discussed, of trying to determine how much Iraq has or has not disarmed.

Over this past period, just to reinforce the point, we have maintained fairly rigorous sanctions on Iraq, sanctions that have actually harmed human beings in Iraq. We have maintained no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq, and other things have gone on such as minor military tactical engagements and special forces operations. These things have gone on over the last 10 years on the fringes, not necessarily in the headlines. Iraq continues to be a problem and has not yet shown to be disarmed or disengaged from those weapons that we know it had.

I would also suggest, in the event that we go into a military engagement in this case, that it could end with the lifting of sanctions, with the streaming of aid and with the channeling of resources that are already in Iraq toward the people who need it there, and then a reconstruction.

I want to talk about the evidence of weapons of mass destruction or non-evidence of weapons of mass destruction. In the business of intelligence gathering it is not always possible to make known what one knows.

There are two good reasons for that. I am talking about the intelligence gathering in relation to whether Iraq has or does not have weapons of mass destruction in existence, buried, hidden or whatever.

The two reasons for not making disclosures are: one, we give up our source. By telling our adversary what we know, we likely have given up our source, and we need that source. Second, we give up our edge, our advantage. We give up our advantage because we know what he does not know that we know.

Those are reasons why the United States and our allies may not want at this point in time to give up that information. If there is an end game in process, then they give up their source and then they make their intelligence known.

If February 5 is a date when the U.S. and others are prepared to give up information to the United Nations, then the end game is in process and Saddam Hussein should be aware of it.

In conclusion, as my time has run out, if there is an engagement, this engagement will not be like the others. If we must be involved, then I think we will be involved.

[The Assistant Deputy Chairman]

It being 12:55 a.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, January 27, the committee will rise and I will leave the Chair.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 12:56 a.m, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:55 a.m.)