Debates of Jan. 29th, 2003

Iraq

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

Madam Chairman, first of all, I find the debate most interesting. The fewer the members present, the more civilized the debate, I find. When we were many, a while ago, tensions were running high. I feel it is important for all parties and members to be able to express their views fully in this debate. This is an important debate for us all.

To begin with, I will give a bit of background. It seems to me important to talk about what the UN is. I have been asking questions the last while in support of the UN and I had a reason for so doing. We must remember that, right after the end of the war, the international community wondered about finding a way to settle disputes on the Planet Earth through international cooperation.

This is important, because when fundamental problems are discussed in the UN and the international community decides that action must be taken in this or that instance, this puts terrible pressure on those who are engaged in wrongdoing, those who believe in the law of the jungle.

Before the UN, the law of the jungle prevailed. The one with the most weapons, or the most strength, was the top animal, the one who made the decisions and could eat up the neighbour and take over his territory. The problem kept on worsening until the international community realized that it had gone too far and things were becoming dangerous for everyone. Then the UN intervened.

The creation of the UN is important. It has the international legitimacy to settle disputes. The UN is useful where Iraq is concerned.

In my opinion, it is dangerous to allow the super powers to make the decisions. If they make a mistake, there are terrible consequences for the rest of the planet. It is therefore important for things to go through an international forum when there are problems such as the one facing us today to be settled.

Now I want to give a brief background on what has led to this conflict with Iraq. Why Iraq? We need to keep in mind that, after the gulf war, an inspection system was set in place, which ran until 1998. Suddenly, the Iraqi government announced that it could no longer tolerate having inspectors on its territory and asked them to leave.

Incidentally, several inspectors were accused of espionage and it was later revealed that it was true. There were spies among the American or international observers. They were simply spying on Iraq.

What happened is that, from 1998 to 2002, the United States was silent on the issue of returning to Iraq to monitor the situation. Why was there this four-year period of silence in the United States?

Of course, some will say that it ended because of September 11. Indeed, September 11 was a factor, which led to the hunt for bin Laden and, in the end, we never did catch him, and he is still on the run.

There was a point in this situation when I thought the President of the United States appeared a bit crazy. They went into Afghanistan and never found bin Laden, and we still do not know where he is.

It seems to me as though it was quite easy for the United States to say, “we need to find someone else. We need to have a new world order, and a new order in the Middle East”. Maybe this is what the Americans said to themselves.

Thus was reborn the spectre of Saddam Hussein. For four years, nobody worried about him, and then suddenly in 2002, we had to take care of him.

What happened is that the United States looked very serious, to the point where the international community—through the UN, in fact—said, “we had better get involved and discuss what we are going to do about the problem in Iraq together”.

That is how it happened. The UN started to discuss it. From there came resolution 1441. We have to ask ourselves if resolution 1441 is now sufficient to justify unilateral intervention by the United States.

Our belief is that it is not. There is good reason that article 14 states that the UN and the Security Council decides to remain seized of the matter.

This means that they want to reconsider the situation. In English it says “revisit”. They want to see again if there is evidence, and if so, decide what to do then. That is giving peace a chance. That is in article 14.

In the meantime, the U.S. comes up with a new international doctrine on international law: preventive force, or preventive strikes.

It is a return to the law of the jungle. The UN is being ignored. People are justifying the fact that the United States of America can say that if it thinks that its security or the security of one of its allies is in danger, it reserves the right to intervene, which would be done without consulting the UN.

Therefore, we have a problem here. If the United States can ignore what the UN is doing and carry out its own justice, explain to me what is preventing Pakistan from attacking India because they will say “If the United States can do it with Iraq, we can do it too”.

What is preventing North Korea from attacking South Korea, on the basis that the new international doctrine of international law allows pre-emptive strikes?

There is an imminent danger with this type of approach and we, necessarily, favour an international approach. This does not change Canada's sovereignty or that of the United States. If fact, if the UN announces a second resolution and states that it is ready to take armed action to resolve the situation with Iraq, each of the countries on the Security Council will have to seek a mandate from their people.

This leads me to my second point regarding the vote. A mandate from the people does not just mean that the Prime Minister and his cabinet decide. We have been saying from the start that we want to have a vote if we deploy armed forces.

Regarding Kyoto, we were told that it was very important to hold a vote in the House; on the next bill concerning political financing, the House is calling for a vote of confidence. So why, when it comes time to mobilize the army and send it to do battle in a dangerous theatre of operations, are we not holding such a debate in the House?

It is all very fine and well to have take-note debates. But when the time comes to decide, we are no longer involved. Afghanistan is a good example.

The last time we held a take-note debate, the moorings had been cast off and the boats were on their way to Afghanistan. And we were going to have a take-note debate. What for, I ask you, when the boats had already left? Certainly, they were not going to be made to turn around and come back.

Parliament must make the decision; the elected representatives of the people, the members, must vote on such an important issue as this.

I was listening to the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton, who said earlier that it really has been a rather mixed record.

During the gulf war, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the current leader the of the Progressive Conservative Party, moved a motion in the House to hold a vote on whether Canada should participate in the war. The motion read as follows:

That this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of third country nationals, supports the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions.

Herb Gray, who was in the opposition at the time—I can say his name because he is no longer here—had introduced an amendment. It said, “that this support shall not be interpreted as approval of the use of Canadian Forces for offensive action without further consultation with and approval by this House”.

He felt this was important when he was in the opposition. He said, “Liberals insist that before Canadians are called upon to participate in any offensive action, such participation must first be brought before parliament and voted on here in the way it was done at the time of the Korean conflict”.

[An hon. member]

Who said that?

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

Herb Gray.

Today the Liberals are in power, and it is no longer important, it is forgotten. You understand that we do not entirely agree; we think that it is important, as important as the environment and political party financing.

The decision to send Quebeckers and Canadians to war requires not only consultation and a take note debate, but also an official debate followed by a vote. That is how the voice of the members is heard, and I think it is important in a democracy. I also think that the Prime Minister and Canada would gain greater legitimacy.

When the Americans decide to go to war, I do not think that the U.S. President can ignore the Senate or the House of Representatives. There were debates, and the United States was given the mandate before the holidays.

That is not the case here. So far, we have been told that the debate did not matter. The Prime Minister and cabinet are the ones who will decide.

We have a problem with that. We think that it is important that such major decisions affecting the younger generation of Canadians and Quebeckers first be put to a vote in this House.

In summary, as far as we are concerned, the UN plays a major role without infringing on the sovereignty of any country. I think that it is very important that we have a vote in the House. If the Prime Minister decides against it, this may be because there is a problem within his party.

This evening, we have heard very different views expressed by the hon. members present. We think it is important that all members vote on this issue.

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

Madam Chairman, earlier this evening the chief of the member's party agreed that for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds, for ordering the killing of 60,000 Shi'ites, for all the unnecessary deaths of society's most vulnerable people, our women, children and the disabled, and for the continued torture, mutilation of children with acid, that Saddam Hussein should be brought before an international court and charged with war crimes. The member's chief agreed to that.

Given everything he said today, my question for the member is, how should Saddam Hussein be apprehended and brought to justice?

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

Madam Chairman, I will obviously reiterate what my leader said. Saddam Hussein is no saint. He will no doubt have to account for his actions to the international community, perhaps not in the next few weeks, but certainly at some point in time. The Milosevic affair was not resolved overnight either. Granted—another member inquired about Kosovo—the international community was indeed forced to act outside the auspices of the UN because Russia had used its veto. I am not saying it should always work that way. If the UN is unable to take action as an international instrument, there will certainly be another debate in this place, and other decisions might be made at that time.

We in the Bloc Quebecois wish to state right off that we have such confidence in the Un that, where Iraq is concerned, we would not be prepared to follow the United States in a unilateral move that did not take the UN into account. That we have already said. Although there are some members who have just claimed they do not look at the polls, we do use them cautiously. There are 62% of Canadians and Quebeckers who do not agree with following the Americans into a war without Security Council approval.

I think that Saddam Hussein must pay for what he has done. History will be the judge, but I am certain that the books will judge him a tyrant and a murderer. The time will come for him to be brought to international judgment.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Chairman, I have heard from the member in his presentation and from many other members in the House today, especially from the governing party but from the other opposition parties as well, that we should give Saddam Hussein more time. The question that has to be asked is how much more time?

The first resolution that Saddam Hussein agreed to, which started this process since the gulf war, was United Nations Security Council resolution 687 which laid out the conditions of the ceasefire. In that resolution which Saddam Hussein agreed to, the onus was on Saddam Hussein to turn over to the weapons inspectors all of his weapons of mass destruction. It was not the responsibility of the inspectors to find them, which is like looking for a needle in the haystack; the responsibility was on Saddam Hussein to turn the weapons over to them so that they could either destroy or supervise the destruction of these weapons.

The United Nations itself put some numbers to these weapons shortly after the gulf war. It said there were about 30,000 empty chemical warheads found, about 550 artillery shells with mustard gas, 400 biological weapons, 26,000 litres of anthrax, as well as botulinum, VX nerve agent, sarin gas and so on. That is what the United Nations weapons inspectors said that Saddam Hussein had and that is what the weapons inspectors say has not been accounted for to this date. Very little of this product has been accounted for to date and it is 11 years later.

We have gone through a series of 15 resolutions now, always trying to fill a loophole that Saddam Hussein found which he used as an excuse not to comply with the initial ceasefire agreement. We have given him 11 years.

The inspectors have expressed concern that he is continuing to build weapons of mass destruction. We know he would use them because he has used them already on tens of thousands of people, and he has threatened us. He is complicit with dozens of terrorists groups that have made it very clear they would be all too willing to use the weapons on western countries, including Canada.

I have to ask the member, knowing all this and knowing the very real threat that Saddam Hussein and his regime pose to our country and to other western nations, just how much time should we give this dictator?

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

Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for the good question. I am not saying how much time we are going to allow Saddam Hussein. I am asking rather how much time we will allow the peace process to get to the bottom of the matter and settle this conflict without its becoming an armed conflict. That is the way the question needs to be worded.

To make an aside, here, from 1998 to 2002 we did not hear any insistence from the U.S. about bringing back the observers. They did not say “They have just been expelled. We will start bringing pressure to bear to get them back in.” From 1998 to 2002 there was not a word.

As for the contacts with terrorists, one might well ask whether there really are any. I recall what General Schwartzkopf said, after installing all his satellites, which I am sure are still in place. He said this:

“Iraq cannot blink without us knowing it”.

In my opinion, if the products that the hon. member mentioned were given to terrorists, the Americans would react immediately. If they are not doing so, it is because this is not happening and there is another reason for the Americans wanting to go to war. We talked about it earlier. It could be oil, or perhaps they want to settle and old score.

What is certain is that the international community, through the UN, is there to manage this crisis. The law of the jungle no longer prevails, although, in my opinion, the Americans want to bring it back. They are the biggest lions on the planet and they will eat the biggest chunks of the planet. So, it is important that we remain under the aegis of the UN. Let us give peace time to work. Let us give peace all the chances and time necessary to work.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to represent my constituents in this debate tonight.

I have never received as many e-mails, letters and faxes as I have over this past number of weeks. They increased after statements were made by my colleagues and when it became a little more ambiguous a few weeks ago about where exactly we stood. I have never received the same sentiment before in my riding.

It is interesting to hear differing visions and different comments from constituents of other members. They sound different than what the constituents in my riding are saying. This is the first time 100% of the people in my riding who have contacted me to date are saying the same thing. That is significant. It is something in which I personally believe. They are saying that we should wait until we have the approval of the only multilateral process that has been proven over time and in which we are engaged. That is the voice of the world today. This is the voice of international law and that is the UN.

From the time of Pearson, we have stood for something in this country. The values of Canada are with due process. There is no rush to go to war just because we can. There is no rush to go to war just because the weather may have changed in some other part or there may be something there.

Our Prime Minister has said to us that we need proof. He said it in a very charming way. The bottom line is we do need proof. Perhaps next week the presentations made at the UN will provide some proof. We do not have sufficient proof today. It is a fluid situation.

No one in my constituency is naive enough to think that if there are gases and weapons of mass destruction, if there is imminent threat and if people in another country are absolutely ignoring the UN wishes through resolution 1441 that we should not act. However it should not be a unilateral action. It should not be just because we have friends, allies and economic interests with the people south of the border with whom we have relations. That is not sufficient reason.

The idea of a pre-emptive strike is foreign to us and should be foreign to anyone in the world who wants peace. It is a system that we will continue in this century. Pre-emptive strikes; what a strange thing. I do not want to find out how smart the bombs are today. It is not important to me. It is important that Canadians can be represented in a parliament. It is important that I can flip on my television and see parliamentarians in England or people demonstrating in the streets around the world asking for due process to happen and saying not to rush to war. It is important to me that our allies respect that we have a voice in Canada that is separate and apart.

I live in southwestern Ontario. Most of the bilateral trade we share between two great nations is done through the bridges very close to my city. I understand the economic integration issues and the need for our countries to be supportive. I realize that is a consideration, but it is not the only consideration.

I stood at a peace rally on a very cold day with many other Canadians, as did many others in different cities. The peace rally was organized by the Muslim community. There are 30,000 Muslim Canadians living in my city of London, Ontario. They organized the rally together with multi-faith communities. The former Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church was a speaker. The United Church, the Anglican Church, the Jewish community and many multi-faith religions stood together. There were people from non-government organizations and immigrant organizations. People from Iraq, who are now Canadians and live in my city spoke. There were children, young, old and women. They all spoke about the need for us to take the time to make war the very last resort.

If inspectors need more time, we should give them more time. If there is a need for more inspectors, we should get more inspectors. It is certainly cheaper than the cost of one day's war. There is not a rush. This cannot take forever. I am one who would say that if the UN regrettably has sufficient proof, we have to take action and my government decides to take a stand in terms of being of some assistance in a multilateral action sanctioned by the United Nations, then I understand the need.

Some people in my riding who have contacted me over the past number of weeks have gone further than I have. They do not want war even if proof is there. That is not my stand. I do not think that is responsible. If we are a member nation of the United Nations, we have to take our place and pull our weight where we can.

When I was growing up my father was in the armed forces, the RCAF and before that the RAF, and I lived on military bases throughout my early education. I know what it means when a father or a parent goes away for months on a mission. I know the pride of our defence personnel and I know that they would serve with honour wherever they were sent. That is not the issue. The issue is how in this century we will deal with these situations.

About this time last year I went to Sierra Leone to help train some women to run for their parliamentary elections. We saw the ravages of war. It was a low tech war. I would hate to see the devastation of a high tech war. I know that there is human error. Even when we have incredibly efficient weapons like missiles, people get killed. I remember our former colleague, Mr. Axworthy, reminded us of the change over time and what actually happened in wars. Before it was military men and women who were the thousands of casualties. Now it is more often civilians.

I do not want to knock the United States. That is not the aim of my conversation with my colleagues tonight. However sometimes the United States seems to talk about short wars and quick wars. It is not over and done with after the bombs are dropped for the people whose economies are destroyed, whose homes are devastated, whose families are shattered and whose governments are in tatters with a parliamentary system that has to be re-established without transport or clean water.

There has been an ongoing situation in this country for many years, from the last time that there was a war in this area, where there have been economic sanctions with which we have agreed. People have still suffered and it has not turned the situation around.

I am here tonight to add my voice of my constituents to ensure that in my representative role I have told the House what they have told me and to say that there is a good process in place. This process would allow the proof that is needed for a decision to be made and it is this process that I hope our country will follow.

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

Madam Chairman, I commend the hon. member for standing with many of her constituents and speaking out against the possibility of war on the people of Iraq who have already suffered so tragically as a result of the economic sanctions which this Parliament in the foreign affairs committee unanimously recommended be lifted.

I see one of the members of that committee joined in that eloquent plea which to date has fallen on the deaf ears of her own government.

First, does the hon. member agree with the position that is taken by her colleague, the Liberal chair of the defence committee, who has said that there is no need for United Nations support, that Canada should join in a U.S.-led coalition of the willing? To quote him, he said:

We were prepared to say, “If the UN doesn't approve military action in Iraq, then we're not going. I think that's an abdication of a national responsibility”.

That is the position of the chair of the defence committee. The national defence minister in Washington, D.C. took a similar position. The Minister of Foreign Affairs had another position. The Prime Minister had yet another position, on which we are not quite clear.

Could the hon. member perhaps enlighten the House and through the House, Canadians, as to where the Liberal government stands on this issue?

Second, and very important, because the member is one for whom I have great respect and she has been in the House for a while, does she not agree that on an issue this fundamental, that if indeed it comes to the point that Canadian men and women are called into military action under the umbrella of a United Nations resolution or otherwise, that each and every member of the House should have the right to vote, not just to debate but to vote, on that fundamental question?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Chairman, the Liberal Party is a big tent. It is very good that we are a big tent. It is very good that we are allowed to stand in a Parliament and express our views. The fact that another colleague of mine has a different opinion does not bother me. Perhaps their constituents are saying something different to them.

What does concern me is that we have the process in place at the UN and if the resolution of the UN goes forward, whatever it is, then I would stand with that without having the vote in the House.

This is my personal opinion. I do not speak for my party. If the situation was that the UN did not sanction any action but the United States wished to go unilaterally, and there was some discussion about whether Canada should join that action, that would be a situation where I would prefer a vote in the House.

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

Madam Chairman, the member opposite said in her remarks that the United Nations is the only multilateral institution that works in situations such as this. I think I am accurately paraphrasing her.

If that is the case, then how does she explain the support that her party, and perhaps she could comment on whether she was included in this, gave to NATO to engage unilaterally, quite explicitly outside the ambit of the United Nations Security Council, to prohibit the government of Serbia from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo? Did she support that unilateral, non-UN sanctioned action at the time? If so, is she not prepared to admit that there are times when the UN is indeed fallible? That responsible democracies from time to time must take action when the UN system simply does not work. Would she not agree with me that the failure of the UN to act in Rwanda, was a object lesson in the failure of the United Nations sometimes to use force appropriately to protect human lives?

I ask this again very specifically. If the UN is always the only multilateral institution through which we can legitimately act, then why did her government and presumably herself support the NATO action in Kosovo and endorse the 1998 bombing strikes against Iraq which were not explicitly authorized through the UN Security Council but indeed was a “unilateral” military action led by the United States which Canada supported?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Chairman, in the context of whether or not there should be pre-emptive strikes, the answer is no, I am not in favour of pre-emptive strikes. In the context of is this the only multilateral organization that Canada is engaged with, obviously it is not. However in the context of whether a Security Council resolution that is currently standing and affects the particular situation we are in right now, the only place that we should be going that has the capacity to give effective multilateral action at this time is the Security Council. I firmly believe in that.

There have been situations in history where genocides have been ongoing. Has the UN ever made a mistake in the past? I think the member cited something regarding Rwanda with which I would agree.

Having made a mistake in the past, does that mean people should take it into their own hands unilaterally at a time when every action has a reaction not only with the immediate neighbours, but around the world?

We can quibble with the words. I think we all know what we are talking about when we talk about due process and established international law. There is a difference. I do not need proof when I see somebody slaughtered in the same manner that I need proof when I have to find some weapons in this situation.

The situation is that we have the time. We can take the time. I do not understand the colleagues in the House who seem eager for what reasons I do not understand to rush to the conclusion that the only resolution is military action as opposed to dialogue.

We have to be prepared to take more forceful action if it is necessary. That is not in dispute. However that is not the action that I hope and expect my government to take in this case.

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

Madam Chairman, I want to come back to a very important question about the role of the House and particularly the role of elected representatives.

Did I understand the member from London to be saying that if the United Nations Security Council authorized military action against Iraq, she would agree that Canada should participate in that without the House and without the elected members of the House being given an opportunity to vote on behalf of their constituents about that fundamentally important decision? Is that what she is saying? If that is what she is saying, how on earth can she justify that?

She may think that is an appropriate position to take, to send men and women into war after reviewing the evidence. That may be her position, but each and every member of the House surely has the right to vote on behalf of their constituents.

I know she has a constituency in which there would be many people opposed to that, particularly from the Arab and Muslim Canadian communities.

Why is there contempt for the role of elected representatives? Why would she not support the right to vote even in the event of a UN Security Council authorized military action?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Chairman, the simple reason is that it is the law of the land that the executive has the right in that situation.

With respect to the Muslim community in my riding, they were active in the resolution that was put before the people at our peace rally and that was following the UN Security Council resolutions.

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

Madam Chairman, if my hon. colleague receives an engraved notice of intention to gas or attack the people of North America, as a member of the government, would she kindly share that with the rest of the people of Canada in advance of attack as well?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Chairman, a very quick answer is that is not a worthy question.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to take part in this debate.

Over the years, Canada has built its global reputation and domestic pride on standing decisively with the international community and our allies in defending peace and security.

A credible threat of military force is a crucial stage in the escalation of diplomatic pressure. It is the only kind of diplomacy that Saddam Hussein has ever understood. In 1995 it forced him to back away from the Kuwaiti border when he had amassed troops in that area to attack Kuwait once again, four short years after the end of the gulf war. Only the amassment of American troops in large numbers encouraged him to back away from that. Last year it forced him to readmit weapons inspectors. Now the credible threat of military force may be our last chance to avoid war in Iraq.

The credible threat of military force is a diplomatic option which we simply cannot afford to bypass. Unfortunately it is a tool not currently included in Canada's diplomatic or military toolbox. There is too little Canada can contribute to an international effort to disarm Iraq.

While our allies mount a significant display of international force in the face of Iraqi recalcitrance, Canada's military is gasping for breath on the sidelines. The government has refused time and time again to give any indication of what the Canadian Forces might be prepared to contribute to the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein. That is probably partly because the government cannot decide whether or not it wants to join the effort at all, but it is partly because Canada's military will have to scrimp and scrape to find equipment and personnel to send should that decision be made.

It is the remarkable adaptability, the professionalism and the perseverance of our serving men and women that has allowed Canada to portray our military contribution as credible. It is only the remarkable actions and effort on their part that allows us to portray our military as being credible.

The sorry state of the Canadian Forces is a direct result of a decade of Liberal neglect. As a point of contrast, let us look at what Canada contributed to the war in Iraq in 1991 just before the Liberals took office.

We had 4,000 Canadian Forces personnel serving in Iraq, with up to 2,500 in that theatre at one time, plus a field hospital of 550 staff in Saudi Arabia. We had 2,000 more military personnel operating in Canada and Germany in direct support of the war in Iraq. We had 34 CF-18 fighter jets with up to 26 in theatre at a time, plus a Boeing 707 in-flight refueller.

The navy provided two destroyers and a supply ship, with a total of six Sea King helicopters. I want to remind everyone that of course the Sea King helicopters were 12 years newer then than they are now. There were actually some pilots who were older than the machine at that time. We just will not find that now.

Canada cannot come close to matching that level of commitment today. This contribution in the gulf war was not decisive to the outcome of the war but it was adequate to maintain Canada's credibility and respectability as a nation committed to working with the international community to protect peace and democracy and to uphold international law.

Thanks to a decade of neglect under the government, Canada can no longer command such respect. Any military contribution we can make to the international effort against Iraq today will be indirect and small from a military point of view, and even less when it comes to a diplomatic point of view, because we simply do not have that kind of respect any more.

I want to talk a little about what Canada could contribute to a military effort, either to help provide that deterrence, which is the only thing that Saddam Hussein seems to understand, or to actually be involved in a war in Iraq should that happen.

From the air force point of view, we could provide one or two Auroras for surveillance and one or two Hercules aircraft for tactical transport. The CF-18s are not near the numbers that were provided in the gulf war but they would be limited to operations to protect the base of operations. Because they do not have a communications system which is compatible with that of our allies, they would not be able to take part in a combat role. We would have to borrow, by the way, in-air refuelling just to get our CF-18s over to Iraq. That is the state our air force is in now.

The navy has four or five ships. Three ships are in the area now.

There are insufficient air crews to man our Sea Kings. Even right now we have had frigates go out without helicopters on board because either we do not have the crews or the helicopters simply are not available because of their high repair and maintenance schedules.

In terms of the army, we could likely make a contribution similar to the one in Afghanistan, about 800 troops, including JTF2 and light infantry.

In committee before Christmas, the head of the army, General Jeffery, said that we could provide 300 troops if absolutely necessary, but he said there would be an incredible price to pay. We had better look at any of these commitments; with any of these commitments, there would be a price to pay.

First, any contribution as large as I have laid out here in any one of the services would cause severe strain for our troops and their families. They have been over-deployed already, to the extent that they are having more family problems than they have ever had before. Many of our well trained, very professional soldiers simply are not willing to stay in the military under these circumstances and many are suffering from severe operational stresses and injuries. One just cannot keep up that kind of schedule year after year.

Second, the commitment I talked about for the army is hypothetical because we do not have the strategic airlift to get our troops and their equipment there.

For example, for the flood in Manitoba and for the ice storm here in the Ottawa area and in Quebec, we managed to borrow strategic airlift from the United States so we could move our troops and their equipment to help with those very serious circumstances. For Afghanistan we managed to borrow and beg from our allies strategic airlift to get there.

With the size of the commitment in the area of Iraq, we simply cannot count on getting the strategic airlift needed from our friends and our neighbours to get our troops there. It is highly questionable as to whether we could find a way to get our troops and our equipment there, and we do not have the sealift either. The size of commitment that Canada could make is much less than it was even when the government came into office almost 10 years ago.

I would like to summarize the need for having the military capability to help provide that deterrent, the only thing that Saddam Hussein understands, the threat of force, the very real threat of force. I have heard many members tonight question that there is a serious threat that we all face. Many have said, “What threat do we face here in Canada?” I would like to remind people.

First, Saddam's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to international peace and security. Saddam could use these weapons for mass terror or transfer them to terrorist allies. He has many allies when it comes to terrorist groups. We have seen a list of them. The weapons inspectors and others have come up with lists of groups that are quite willing to work with Saddam Hussein. We know that threat is very real.

In terms of weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi regime has developed weapons of mass destruction, defying numerous UN Security Council resolutions. I mentioned this before; 15 resolutions and they have ignored every one of them. Resolution 1441 is the lastest. The weapons inspectors said clearly Iraq's regime is simply not complying.

All those weapons of mass destruction, the roughly 30,000 chemical warheads, the 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas, the 400 biological weapons, the 26,000 litres of anthrax, as well as botulinum, VX nerve agent and sarin gas, are not pretty weapons that we are talking about. Most of these deadly weapons of mass destruction have not been accounted for.

A UN resolution put in place the ceasefire. There never was an armistice to end the gulf war; there was a ceasefire. We are still operating under a ceasefire and Saddam Hussein agreed to the terms of that ceasefire. He agreed to turn all weapons of mass destruction over to UN weapons inspectors. The United Nations and the weapons inspectors say very clearly that he has not complied.

What more proof do we need that the threat is very real and is still there? What dictator in the nature of Saddam Hussein has ever done something like that in secret? How many in this House are really willing to take him at his word that Iraq has destroyed its weapons of mass destruction? I suggest that there would be no one. I hope there would be no one after giving this situation clear thought.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Secretary of State (Central and Eastern Europe and Middle East)]

Madam Chairman, I understand the position of the Canadian Alliance. It is not an unreasoned position, but it is not one that the government is taking.

Canada should commit itself to being part of the coalition to increase the magnitude of the force allied against Saddam Hussein and therefore increase the likelihood that he will comply with the UN issued request to disarm.

Is there some point where a massive build up of force would have the opposite effect, that it would say to Saddam Hussein that the decision has already been made to go? If Saddam Hussein was rational and thought the decision had already been made to intervene and that war was inevitable, would it have the opposite effect? If he had weapons of mass destruction, rather than give them up believing that the decision had already been made, would he keep them with the idea that he would use them in a war?

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Chairman, for me to try to read the mind of someone as unpredictable as Saddam Hussein is impossible. I simply cannot do that. I do know that the only thing Saddam Hussein has responded to in the past was a substantial show of force on his doorstep. That was the only thing he responded to.

In 1995, four short years after the end of the gulf war, he was amassing troops to invade Kuwait. What stopped him? He was stopped only by a large number of forces amassed on the border by the United States.

Last year, what caused Saddam Hussein to agree to open up to UN weapons inspectors? It was the amassing of a large number of troops on his doorstop by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and a whole list of other countries. That type of show of force is the only hope we have to get through this without war.

How long can we wait to find out what he will do? In North Korea we waited too long. The policy of appeasement in 1994 and around that period in North Korea allowed that country to develop nuclear weapons. We face an extremely difficult situation with North Korea now. Had we not followed that policy of appeasement at that time, had we forced North Korea to comply, we would not be facing that type of nuclear threat today.

I do not want to wait for a similar type of situation to develop in Iraq. I certainly do not want Canadians, Americans, the British, or any other society, including the people of Iraq and area, to face those weapons of mass destruction.

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

Madam Chairman, I would like to get this clear. The member said we waited too long with North Korea. Is he suggesting that we should have attacked North Korea or China or gone after Mugabe? Do we have a list of these tyrants who have potential weapons of mass destruction and do we systematically go after each and every one of them, or will we selectively choose one? I do not understand.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Chairman, I have heard that comment many times before. Each situation of course is quite different. Certainly the situation in North Korea is entirely different from the situation in Iraq from a couple of points of view.

It was only very recently that the western world discovered that North Korea was so far along in developing atomic weapons. There is still hope for a process of negotiation to be successful in North Korea. But a huge mistake was made in North Korea back in 1994 when that type of a country with that type of regime was given the ability to continue to develop nuclear weapons.

That situation would never have happened had there been a commitment on the part of many countries to take action if North Korea did not respect the agreements it signed not to develop nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we followed a policy of appeasement and now we have an extremely difficult problem to deal with, but it is a different problem from the one we have in Iraq.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Chairman, the hon. member made reference to a policy of appeasement and surely to goodness I do not think anybody would suggest that anybody's policy on Iraq these days is one of appeasement. There are UN inspectors there, they are on the ground, and they are doing their job.

My relatively narrow question to the member is, if Dr. Blix on February 14 delivers his report indicating that more time is needed to continue, what would the member's views be on the appropriateness of military intervention at that point?

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Chairman, that is a good and fair question. I think that what we have to again remember is that the onus was on Saddam Hussein, and still is, to turn these weapons of mass destruction over to UN inspectors.

We are now 15 resolutions down the road because no action has been taken. We have followed a policy of appeasement and that is why we are facing an extremely difficult situation. This situation would never have developed had nations gotten together and showed that they were serious about enforcing the UN resolutions.

Now, not only are we facing real prospect of war in Iraq, but we are facing a real prospect, and I think sadly, that the United Nations could lose its relevance in terms of a security body in the world.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Chairman, the member suggested that there was still time in North Korea to resolve the challenges there. He did not say how, but I assume it would be diplomatically or through some intervention other than military. If the diplomatic measures fail, does the member anticipate a war with North Korea?

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Chairman, I do not anticipate a war in Iraq either. I am still hoping that a big enough show of force amassed on Saddam Hussein's doorstep will prevent war in Iraq, and that is what the debate is about tonight.