Debates of Feb. 10th, 2003

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, as always I enjoyed listening to the member. He has a thoughtful point of view. He believes passionately and is always ready to bring his feelings and his understanding of the situation to the House and I respect him for that.

We have to be careful of the language we use in what we are discussing today. I realize that most of us participating here today are not ministers of the Crown and do not have to be as careful as others, but the previous speaker on the Liberal side talked about the problem being American aggression. The member talked about the problem of the unilateral action of the Americans.

If it happens, it will not be a unilateral action of the Americans. Already 25 countries have said that if necessary, in order to enforce resolution 1441, which is not about finding weapons of mass destruction and doing something about them, but is about the Iraqis bringing that to the table, serious consequences are in order. It will be a multilateral approach.The Americans will certainly head it up but it will be a large coalition. I suspect Canada will be part of it.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. member, consider this scenario.

If the UN Security Council holds a vote and action is vetoed, Britain has committed itself to joining the Americans should the Americans go ahead with action in Iraq. If that were to occur and British soldiers were committed to an American attack force in Iraq, what would happen to Tony Blair? It is very apparent.

Where it requires a vote of confidence to remove a prime minister in this country, the British prime minister can be removed simply by a vote of his own caucus. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Blair has so little support not only in his own country but in his own caucus, that he would probably not last more than a couple of weeks. The wounding, the impact that would have on the position of the United States president and the validity of his attack on Iraq, if the British prime minister was fired from his job as a result of supporting the Americans, would be profoundly negative. It would be a terrible blow to American foreign policy and its image abroad.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of attending the 39th conference on peace and security in Munich, Germany. It was interesting to listen to the comments of Donald Rumsfeld, Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain.

Make no mistake about it, one way or another, Saddam Hussein and his regime will be disarmed. The question is, how do we do it? One of the concerns I asked in the coffee room afterward was what is the post-Saddam plan?

The war will turn out to be the easiest thing to do. With the military might of the Americans and the British, they will walk in and clean up fairly reasonably. Countries such as Bulgaria, Iran and many others in the surrounding area are very concerned as to what will happen to the possible thousands of refugees. We heard from a member from southeast Asia who indicated that there would be an unleashing of hatred by over 200 million Muslims in Asia. They are very concerned about what the future will be in that regard.

I ask the member, what important role does the government play in making sure that any action, not just multilateral action by Britain and the United States, be done with the full support of the UN?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I may sum up, the point of the war with Iraq is that it has to have the support of the people of the world. If it does not have the support of the people of the world, they will lose confidence in the United States. It is not enough for leaders to decide. We have to bring along not only the Americans but people across the world. Right now, it would appear the majority of people are opposed to the war in Iraq seen as necessary by the United States.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to inform you that I will by sharing my time with my new colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate, which is of the utmost importance to our work, to democracy and to peace. I feel the need to read the motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois:

That this House consider the sending of troops to Iraq by the government only after the United Nations Security Council has passed are solution explicitly authorizing a military intervention in Iraq.

I am very happy, because it is an important debate that deals with one of the main issues relating to the role of the United Nations and the need for the United Nations not only to be respected, but to be involved in this decision.

Indeed, with the evolution of the world and of mankind, we are supposed to have gone beyond the days when a state, However powerful, would unilaterally decide to declare war, with everything that that implies, on another sovereign state.

Those days in the history of mankind are long gone, and the League of Nations, which later became the United Nations, was given the authority and the mandate to examine and assess the merit of any decision to attack another sovereign state.

This is what today's debate is all about. The role of the United Nations has to be respected. This organization is the guardian of international law, and that is no small task. We know what human nature is like. We can see what goes on in the Liberal Party, and we can see what goes on at the UN as well. There can be bargaining, but the authority to approve war rests with the UN, after discussions and after looking at whatever bargaining there may have been between countries. We can also see bargaining elsewhere, for example between states and between governments, where they say, “You give me this and I will give you that”.

Still, despite all of this, we need to respect the United Nations, because it is our best achievement so far. To act without the consent of the UN would be a travesty and a denial of justice. As implied in the motion, the role of the UN as sole repository of international law must be recognized, and anyone who does not respect the authority of the UN should eventually bear the brunt of it.

This issue raises a lot of concerns. I have received a lot of submissions from various groups in my riding that I will mention briefly: MagnificArt, École Bois-Joli of Trois-Rivières-Ouest, where some twenty students wrote to me, as did students from the École Saint-François-d'Assise. I might read some of these letters later on. Also, 11 organizations from the Mauricie, under the aegis of the Comité de Solidarité Tiers-Monde, got together to criticize the attitude exhibited and the threats made by the Americans.

The following organizations supported the initiative of Brian Barton, chairman of the Comité de Solidarité Tiers-Monde, in the hope of finding a pacific resolution to this problem: the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste of the Mauricie, the Centre de femmes of Shawinigan, in the Prime Minister's riding, the Centre d'action bénévole of Shawinigan, the Centre Roland-Bertrand, also of Shawinigan, the Conseil central Coeur-du-Québec of the CSN, the Table de concertation du mouvement des femmes de la Mauricie, the Office diocésain de pastorale de Trois-Rivières, the Fédération des syndicats du secteur de l'aluminium, namely the FSSA of Mauricie, the Syndicat de l'enseignement des vieilles Forges de la Mauricie, the COMSEP group, which is doing a great job in the area of literacy training, and the Corporation de développement communautaire de Francheville.

These organizations are quite representative of our society. They are against this almost unstoppable movement, this determination to go to war at all costs, without establishing the legitimacy or the necessity of such a war. And this is another aspect of this issue.

I was speaking earlier to students in grade four at Saint-François-d’Assise school who had sent me letters to pass on to the Prime Minister, which I did.

I will read you the one, for example, written by little Maude Langlois, who is in grade four; she wrote the following:

I think that violence is not the best way to fix things. We do not have to go to war. I am scared. I do not want to die so young. If we go to war and we lose, what will we do?

I think this letter shows that there is fear and dissatisfaction. The crux of the problem, in my opinion as a citizen and as a parliamentarian, is that the need for this aggression or war, or the legitimacy of this war, has not been demonstrated. Its legitimacy was not demonstrated by Tony Blair a few weeks ago nor by Colin Powell last week.

Both times, there was a lamentable failure, I believe, to make the case. They only convinced people who were already convinced. They did not present any truly new evidence to prove the real threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his government to the Western world.

That is the crux of the matter: the legitimacy and the need for this war have not been demonstrated. That is why, currently, throughout the world, there are protests, and polls in Quebec and elsewhere show that the public does not support aggression.

There were protests in Paris, Beijing, Moscow and across the continent. There were protests in Montreal, and there will be more to show that people do not agree. In Quebec, 49% of the population say that, even with the UN's approval, Canada should not participate in this war. This is extremely telling.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Is that your opinion?

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

This reflects concern and dissatisfaction, and increasingly calls into question the democratic representativeness of our parliaments. Perhaps the minister should show an interest in this.

What is the government up to? I do not want to think about Berlusconi's situation, when protests will begin in Rome. When this right-wing government is so easily won over by Tony Blair, we must wish him luck. Democracy and real representativeness are at stake.

There is a widening gap between our Parliament and democracy. What can I say about that? We can see that Tony Blair and his Labour Party are experiencing some problems. Members of Parliament, who represent the people, are increasingly divided on the relevance of Tony Blair's actions as prime minister. He is looking more and more like some kind of part-time foreign affairs minister for the United States, travelling the world to try to get countries like Italy and Spain to sign on.

In fact, as I was saying, this is starting to create an uproar. We can feel it in certain nations and also in certain people. We hear the damning comments by Nelson Mandela, who is not only denouncing the imperialism underlying the U.S. position, but also making, in public, a direct connection between the importance of oil for the Americans and their intention to attack Iraq.

The fact that this man, whose wisdom is recognized internationally, would dare say such things in public is a sure sign that something is really wrong.

The solution still resides in looking to achieve peace through diplomatic means. In this regard, France's efforts must be encouraged. It does not always behave as it should, in Africa for example, but I think that what it is doing right now with Germany, Belgium and Russia is more civilized than the kind of belligerent rhetoric that we have been hearing elsewhere and that I, as a citizen of the world, find totally irrelevant in today's society.

Power does not give a country the right to do as it pleases. I will conclude by saying that we must replace the “might is right” rule by the rule of law.

[Sébastien Gagnon, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today for the very first time ever in this House, particularly since the topic of this Bloc Quebecois opposition day is of such vital importance. It will, moreover, affect a large number of my fellow citizens in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.

The importance the Iraqi question is assuming on the international level forces us all to do some very serious thinking. Decisions that are fraught with consequences need to be reached here, decisions that will have a direct impact on the lives of millions of people, including the people of Canada and Quebec.

I will therefore indicate some points that need to be raised and given consideration by the government. First, the Bloc Quebecois has a duty to represent the will of the Quebec people. Through polls and directly, the people of Quebec have clearly demonstrated in recent days their opinion about a military intervention in Iraq without UN consent. It is clear, therefore, that my position is one that I have adopted without hesitation, hence my pleasure at being able to rise today in this place.

Since we are in a democratic system, the government cannot close its eyes to the opposition being raised by all the groups throughout Canada who object to war on Iraq.

I would also like to remind hon. members of the historical position of the Government of Canada. Before the present Prime Minister came along, Canada always acted via the United Nations. What is more, prime ministers always wisely decided to hold a vote before engaging in any major conflict.

We need think only of the two world wars, the Korean conflict, the Gulf War. On positions as crucial as these, it is up to the public to decide, because it is directly affected. I am calling upon the Liberal government to face up to its responsibilities and to put this decision back in the hands of parliamentarians, who are the representatives of the population.

Within a community, no citizen, powerful or rich though he may be, has the right to declare himself exempt from the rules and the law. If he does, he will be called to justice. Imagine what would happen if people decided to stop respecting the government institution that represents them. There would be confusion, if not downright anarchy. So, similarly, if countries, or one powerful country, consistently ignore the supranational institution that is the UN, world balance, which is already very fragile, is at risk.

In recent decades, we have seen how necessary the United Nations organization has been to international equilibrium. This was true in the past and is all the more so today. We must never return to the law of the jungle.

If the United States and Great Britain were to decide to take matters into their own hands and attack Iraq without UN approval, it would be a bit as if an individual decided to punish someone who had been accused without waiting for a verdict on the part of a recognized tribunal.

When such an international system is in place, it must be respected objectively. In a court of law, the Crown prosecutor does not impose and carry out the sentence. However, this is what the U.S. is getting ready to do, namely to convict without a finding of guilt. It is not only Saddam Hussein it is getting ready to eliminate, but thousands of innocent victims who happen to have been born in that country.

Maybe we should consider ousting Saddam Hussein and making him powerless to do harm? But first we have a paramount responsibility, namely protecting the women and children of that country, who are already suffering a lot due to the sanctions imposed after the last conflicts.

Once the UN report is completed and the UN has passed judgment on Saddam Hussein, we will have to take its recommendations into account, because if we do not trust this institution, whom shall we trust? Which country has the right to make its own laws or its own rules? It would not be very reasonable to allow just anybody to do it.

I have a question: Will the Canadian government blindly follow the United States in the hope that we will eventually be rewarded for our faithfulness? I will remind everybody that for years now we have virtually been stuck to them, and we know how we have been rewarded, for instance in the softwood lumber dispute. Because of this dispute many families in our communities, in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean for instance, are now destitute.

Today, the Liberal government has the opportunity to confirm what it has proclaimed loud and clear so often, namely its independence from the United States.

Finally, I myself was a paratrooper in the Canadian Forces for several years. Seeing some of my friends and young people from my riding go to Iraq when it has not been deemed necessary by the UN would sadden me terribly.

Today, as a parliamentarian, I want to be able to look my friends who are still in the military and their families straight in the eyes and tell them in all sincerity that the decision which has been made is justified. Going to war with the conviction it is essential and unavoidable can be motivating and gratifying. But leaving in a climate of uncertainty and ambiguity is not only distressing, it is deadly.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of the Environment.

I want to say very clearly that I support the opposition motion. War should only be used as a last resort after all other attempts to find a peaceful solution have failed.

Having said that, I am not naive enough to believe that wishing it so will make it so. It is obvious and very clear that Saddam Hussein needs to be disarmed. It is obvious and very clear that Saddam Hussein has a history of ruthless violence against his own people and surrounding peoples. It is obvious and clear that Saddam Hussein has violated United Nations resolutions. Therefore, let me be very clear that we are not suggesting that Saddam Hussein is a wonderful human being and that we should think kindly of him and trust him.

I believe war is a weapon of such violence that we need to be very clear about when we are going to use war. I believe war should only be used in two instances. When there is clear and imminent danger from a particular party that we are considering and when we have to defend ourselves. Let us examine that.

Is there clear and imminent danger? The last time, during desert storm in 1991, we bombed Iraq and it was left in rubble. Twelve years of sanctions have kept Iraq from ever growing and moving forward, or helping its people. We know from UNICEF and World Health Organization statistics that 4,500 children die every month from dehydration, malnutrition and water borne diseases. The 1991 desert storm bombing destroyed all Iraq's ability to keep its water supply clean and now children are dying every day.

When we bomb Iraq who will we be killing? Do any of us believe we will kill Saddam Hussein? We did not get the al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. We did not get Osama bin Laden. He has gone somewhere. Do we think that Saddam Hussein will sit and wait for someone to bomb him? We will only be harming a lot of children. Sixty per cent of those vulnerable in Iraq right now are under seven years of age.

Why will we be bombing Iraq? Will we be bombing Iraq because we want to detonate weapons of mass destruction? Does that make any sense to anyone? Will we be bombing it because we think it has weapons of mass destruction that it is prepared to use now? We found 11 canisters of chemical weapons. They are old and rusted. Were they there during the gulf war? Are they old, unusable containers?

If we really are concerned about clear and imminent danger we should look at North Korea, which not only has amassed those weapons and are getting ready to use them, but has said very openly to the United States that it is going to get it. Not only is it going to get the United States, but it has posters speaking about crushing the United States.

Where is the clear and imminent danger? I would say that we need to look to North Korea but we are looking to Iraq. We are looking to a country where its people are continually suffering. The whole concept of clear and imminent danger is one that I do not see fulfilled right now. Therefore I do not understand why we would want to bomb Iraq.

I suggest that we continue to look at what the United Nations is doing. We have had a Security Council resolution. Everyone has spoken to resolution 1441. We all know that Hans Blix will be reporting on February 14. Let us hear what his report says. Let us hear if there is clear and imminent danger. Let us hear what the United Nations Security Council decides to do. Even then I would say that Canada should consider what it does. We need to consider how we will disarm Iraq.

I do not believe, as I said earlier, that dropping bombs on Iraq will disarm it. Some countries in the world have floated ideas around. How do we disarm Iraq? Some people have said that if ground troops were sent in we could effectively disarm Iraq but only if we hear on February 14 that there is a concern that there have been weapons sitting there.

The second thing we may do is consider other ways of dealing with this issue. We only have to look at the International Criminal Court which Canada had a huge role in promoting. We could bring people, who have violated United Nations resolutions and who are seen to be horrible violent dictators, before this court. Let us take Saddam Hussein to the International Criminal Court.

How can we do that when the United States, which was opposed to the International Criminal Court for so long, only agreed to it on the condition that it have one year of a moratorium where it would not be examined at the International Criminal Court? We have clear tools that have been set up to deal with people like Saddam Hussein.

What will happen if we have a war? Will it resolve the problem or will it create an even greater problem? We have heard that Saddam Hussein has links to terrorism. In a recent report by the CIA called “Patterns of Global Terrorism” it states that in 2002 Iraq was a low risk mainly because there was no association with terrorists that it could find.

We heard from Mr. Powell's presentation to the United Nations that there were al-Qaeda terrorists in northern Iraq. That area of northern Iraq is supposed to be under Kurdish domination and therefore Saddam Hussein has absolutely no authority over that area.

We have the United States itself and we have the knowledge of the geography of where those terrorists are to say that there are no terrorist links.

It is obvious to anyone that fear is a reasonable response to terror. As peoples of the world we should be doing two things: first, responding to terror; and second, creating an environment in which we do not have unilateral action from any country for a pre-emptive strike on another country.

Have we not lived through enough wars to have learned that we need to come together as nations and come up with a concerted plan of action, a clear strategy that we must undertake?

What kind of foreign policy do we need as a democratic nation of the world to develop to deal with the Saddam Husseins of the world? I must say that if we are talking about the violation of human rights, why are we only looking at Saddam Hussein? Why are we not looking at Indonesia? Why are we not looking at Israel? There are violations there.

It is clear from articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations charter that if there is a violation of United Nations conventions that no one country should take a stand to deal with that. It is up to the United Nations Security Council to deal with that.

We have a process. Let us work within the process. This process is not about suggesting that people hate the United States, or this is an anti-U.S. sentiment. It is not. It is about recognizing that we went to war many times and all those wars were supposed to end wars but that they did not. Because of that we set up a multilateral organization called the United Nations in which nations of the world could come together, do the checks and balances and form a concerted plan of action in which to deal with terror, with human rights violations and with pre-emptive strikes.

This is what we want to do because we cannot have two sets of rules. We cannot have a double standard. We cannot have only one country being allowed to make pre-emptive strikes. What is to stop China, India or North Korea from doing the same, or any country that possesses nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction?

Disarmament is obviously the only way for us to foster an environment of peace in this world. Let us deal with disarmament in a strategic manner. All countries should disarm, not some disarm and others not. Let us talk about how we move toward a plan for disarmament. Let us take a rational approach if we are not in clear and imminent danger and if we are very clear that we do not need to defend ourselves.

This is why we need to take the time. We need to work together. We need to come to a plan of action that will achieve the ends that we desire. Those ends are to disarm Iraq and get Saddam Hussein to justice for his crimes against humanity. We have the tools set up through the United Nations to do that.

We need to create an environment in which we value women and children in this world. By bombing we will not be killing the person we want to kill. We will only be creating new grounds for people to fear us and to begin to develop terrorism because they are so afraid of us and afraid of what we in the democratic world will use our might to achieve.

I would like us to discuss this. I support the motion. I say let Canada lead as it has always done in creating a world where peace and human security are achieved through viable and clear processes and means under the United Nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is lot of passion on the issue today, but I do not know if I have heard a lot of logic. The motion is about whether we need a 17th, I think it is, UN resolution on Iraq before “serious consequences” means serious consequences.

I do share the member's passion and hope that there is not a war. I do hope that the pressure that frankly the Americans and their allies are bringing on Saddam Hussein right now might actually bring about a peaceful resolution. The UN peacekeepers would not even be back in there today if it were not for the Americans. We would not even be this close to a possible solution, because Saddam has of course violated all of the 16 or 17 resolutions to date and has no intention of keeping them.

I have two quick questions. The first is that if it is only clear and imminent danger we should act upon, then why were we in Kosovo? Second, why were we in Kosovo without the United Nations? Russia vetoed that. The Security Council vetoed that. What did we do? We who cared about the situation in Kosovo went around the United Nations and worked with our NATO allies, saying that we had to go in there and clean out that hornet's nest. Why is Milosevic before the courts now? We know that he did not walk up and volunteer his time. He was brought to justice.

My question is, how do we think we will get Saddam Hussein to justice? The criminal court might be a fine place to get him, but we just cannot send out an invitation like a birthday card and hope he will show up. I think he will have to be brought to justice.

We can all plead for disarmament around the world. I heard the passionate plea from the member and I think she is sincere, but it does not work unilaterally. We will not get guys like Saddam Hussein to play that game. They do not just say that the jig is up and they think they will walk off to Geneva to see how they do in court. These people will hold on to power, viciously, tyrannically and, as the former leader of the NDP said, demonically.

I do not know if I would go that far, but certainly with everything at his disposal, including a million man army, he will keep his people under his thumb and he will not come to court. He will not disarm. He will not obey UN resolutions. The only reason he is co-operating as much as he is right now is that the Americans and the British are breathing down his throat. He is now tossing documents onto the table hoping that will satisfy them. I do not know how the member thinks that bringing him to court is a possibility. How will that work?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks some very important questions. If we are going to demonize Saddam Hussein, and maybe he deserves to be demonized or whatever, this is not new. He is not suddenly killing his own people and violating United Nations human rights resolutions. In 1983, we saw the same Mr. Rumsfeld with an arm around Saddam Hussein shaking his hand just after he had gassed 6,800 Kurds. Let us ask ourselves, what is this sudden hurry to deal with Saddam Hussein when he was a friend once, when he was doing the same things he is doing now? In fact, his fangs have been pulled over the last 12 years because we have not seen a lot from him.

My question is, if we are going to be concerned about terrorism and human rights violations, let us be really clear and not have double standards. We have Indonesia, Turkey, Israel and North Korea. There are all kinds of people who have been violating human rights in their countries and who are threatening the United States right now, so why are we not doing anything about them?

The question that the hon. member asked was about Kosovo. There was a multilateral decision at the time. That was through NATO, so Canada went there. There was a very clear sense from NATO, which was on the ground in Europe where the problems were occurring in Kosovo, that it was what we should do, so we did it. I am not suggesting to the hon. member that Milosevic walked up and said, “Here I am. Please take me to the International Criminal Court”.

Obviously there are ways in which we can set up some clear strategic plans through democratic countries, through the United Nations, and we can bring people to justice under the criminal court. Let us find them. We still have not found Osama bin Laden. We bombed Afghanistan, which was rubble anyway, and there we go, we have left it alone. The Taliban is coming back.

What will be the result of bombing Iraq? I wish to hear that from some of the members across the way. What will we do? Are we going to just walk away and leave it like we did Afghanistan, for young people to continue to die with this order?

[An hon. member]

No, Iraq has oil. We won't--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, much has been said by members on both sides of the House regarding the present situation in Iraq. All have agreed that all actions must be taken, particularly in the area of diplomacy, to avoid war and that should an attack on Iraq be inevitable such action be sanctioned by the United Nations.

It also should be noted that throughout the last several months the position of the Canadian government, as articulated by the Prime Minister, has been consistent with both of these goals: accelerated diplomacy and support for the United Nations.

One of the most noteworthy accomplishments of this approach, which historically been the linchpin of Canadian foreign policy, has been to impress upon the United States that within an increasingly complicated global environment, multilateral action is preferable to unilateral initiative in pursuit of peace and, most important, the real war, the war on terrorism, which in effect is a war on humanity.

It should be stated categorically that Canadian leadership has been instrumental in successfully having the United States bring the issue of Iraq and, by corollary, terrorism to the United Nations where, if humanity and civil society as we know it is going to escape the Armageddon that will result from international nuclear and biological barbarism, solutions must be found.

But while we are all in agreement with this approach, what are we to do should the United Nations, because of Security Council veto, fail to take action with respect to Iraq's violation of resolution 1441? If not in the area of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, irrefutably Iraq is engaged in the proliferation of biological weapons of horrific magnitude.

History provides us a lesson with respect to the demise of the League of Nations and subsequent policies of appeasement: that there comes a time in the affairs of state where authoritarian and inhuman regimes not bound by rule of law and respect for human rights must be confronted by those that are.

Canadians of every political and religious persuasion and every national state of origin look to their government for profoundly intelligent and decisive leadership, leadership that will shape events and not simply react to them.

What, then, is the situation in which we find ourselves in terms of a reactive posture? On the other hand, given Canadian initiatives thus far, what is the direction that will continue the cohesive support that the government enjoys from Canadians on its position taken thus far?

I think it is clear that legally and technically Iraq is in violation of resolution 1441, and if not, at the very least it is not complying with the spirit of that resolution. It is clear that in the over 10 years since the Gulf war, Iraq has not disarmed and its very belligerence in the face of international solidarity demonstrates that it has the capacity for armed resistance on an alarming scale.

Can it be any wonder, therefore, that the world must take appropriate pre-emptive action against the Iraqi leadership, which in recent history has shown monstrous disregard for even its own citizens? There can be no question, therefore, that if it has not done so already, it will most certainly harbour terrorists who with time will prove a threat of a most serious proportion to world peace.

What, then, is the correct position for Canada to take in response to this threat? I would respectfully contend that in terms of world peace we have a very small window of opportunity to avert the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and find them in the hands of terrorists. In that respect, the United States is correct, and we are fortunate that the United States has the military capability to counterbalance the behaviour of criminally non-conforming regimes such as Iraq and North Korea. But the United States is wrong to believe it can be the world's policeman without incurring just the opposite, the enmity of the world, and this in spite of the fact that in almost every international calamity it is the United States that responds with humanitarian aid.

It is because of the role and credibility of the United States, and that they are so fundamental to world peace, that Canada must continue to play its leadership role in bridging its efforts with the United Nations. What this means is that a new world order is being created. It is really only the United States that shares with us a democratic moral imperative that can take us away from the kind of nuclear abyss that will mean the end of civil society as we know it, as we know it and as our children will know it.

Who will play this role if we do not? Not the Europeans alone, and not the Russian or Chinese regimes at this time, as they are only now just beginning to develop democratic institutions themselves. No, the world has come to expect that Canada will play this role of helpful fixer. This role has served the world well through peacekeeping initiatives in the past century, and it was Canadian diplomatic and political leadership that contributed to the recognition of the People's Republic of China and the end of the cold war.

In no time since the second world war has the world been more in danger and at no time has it been more incumbent that the House shed partisanship and support the government in doing what Canada has done best: forging alliances for peace, with the United States as its trusting and trusted neighbour.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I was answering the question by the hon. member across the way earlier on, I was speaking of human rights violations and of contraventions of the United Nations charter. I want to clarify that my reference to Turkey, Indonesia and Israel was only with regard to United Nations resolutions contraventions and not to human rights violations.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member would understand that this was not a point of order but, in her own words, a matter of clarification.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did appreciate the comments from the member. He articulated something I had been hoping to hear more of from the other side, which basically is that our best political friends and international allies are the Americans. Not only is the United States our best trading partner but, as the member has said, it is probably the country that we have most in common with as far as democratic ideals and a working relationship on them are concerned. I am very grateful to hear his comments along those lines. I think we can have an honest difference of opinion as to what we should do about that, but, boy, that is a healthy breath of fresh air to hear that in this place from the Liberals. I am so pleased about that.

I do want him, though, to address specifically the issue brought forward by the Bloc today as to whether he believes we should not support the multilateral approach of the Americans in dealing with the contravention of resolution 1441. In other words, the Bloc says that we cannot do any more, that we cannot support any military action unless there is a 17th specific resolution of the United Nations calling for military intervention.

Does he support the motion of the Bloc or does he think that resolution 1441 currently before the United Nations, specifically talking about the breaking of the ceasefire agreement and signed way back in 1991, is enough if, heaven forbid, we have to take military action against Saddam? Is it enough of a legal requirement for the United States to move with its partners and do a military job there?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Colin Powell approached the United Nations in a two phase manner. What he has done, to my mind, is illustrate that at this point he does not believe that there is the necessity for a second resolution. He feels that he has argued that persuasively. At this point I am not going to comment further on that, but what he has done is set the stage to argue that again before the Security Council in a few days.

It is my feeling that we should not talk about failure at this point until we have played our role with respect to achieving the success of a multilateral and coordinated response to what is happening in Iraq. I think that Colin Powell and the United States have yet to have their second opportunity to do that. Canada should be very supportive of giving that kind of airing through the Security Council, which the United States has requested. As I indicated in my speech, that is the position we have taken. We have bumped and nudged the United States to go to the United Nations, so we should not at this point prejudge what the outcome of that will be. I do not support the Bloc's resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too want to express my appreciation to the hon. member. His words were very wise and well put. It is certainly a nice change from what I have been hearing.

We do not have to be reminded of the horrors of war. I think every one of us here is familiar with that from the past. This is not what we should be debating. We should be debating how we resolve the difficult situation that lies before us.

I too agree that there is no reason why we should throw our political stripes on the table and say that is what we will follow. A lot of times with these issues one has to not only follow the advice that one gets from the facts but sometimes simply follow one's heart and make a judgment on past history.

I do not believe the gulf war ended in 1990. I believe there was a ceasefire. The member seemed to be speaking about after the war, but the war really never ended. Resolutions were put forward that Iraq, particularly Saddam, was expected to meet. He has failed on every occasion to meet them.

After resolution 1441, does the member truly believe there should be another resolution?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was persuaded by the member's earlier speech with respect to the background on what happened as a result of post-gulf war events. The member is right that there was simply a truce of sorts and that it was incumbent on Iraq to disarm. I think that was very clear.

However I too do not want to be technical or legal about that because I do not know enough about it. The spirit of what happened was not complied with by the leadership in Iraq. That is very clear. Because of that, we are in the present situation, and world peace is being placed at risk.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the House permits it, I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Montcalm, who reminds us how much the Bloc Quebecois remains a force in Quebec.

The motion before us today is extremely serious and extremely solemn. When it comes to war and peace, it is impossible to take things lightly, and we certainly cannot talk like some of our colleagues have, as though this were some western, where there are good guys and bad guys.

The situation requires that we examine it from all angles and I think that that is what my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, had in mind when he moved the motion.

The motion states that if there must be military intervention—please note the importance of the if—it could only be done after the United Nations Security Council authorized a multilateral intervention in Iraq.

So, we in the Bloc Quebecois find it hard to imagine that the United States should act alone. We have the utmost respect for the U.S., whose President Kennedy once said, in reference to Canada, that geography had made us neighbours, but history had made us friends. Indeed, we are friends with the United States and indeed, we do have intense trade relations with the U.S. However, as the member for Mercier said, “Might does not make right”. That is why any intervention undertaken must be multilateral.

Does this mean that we believe that there cannot be a military intervention under any circumstances? Not necessarily. The motion does not say that. The motion, with all of the sense of nuance that these circumstances require, asks that our actions be part of a multilateral United Nations effort, and asks that we weigh the situation.

Why is the Bloc Quebecois right to take this approach? First, we need to realize that if we do support a military offensive in the region where Iraq is located, there will be consequences. There will be consequences for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as for the other surrounding Muslim countries. These consequences could involve more than toppling governments or destabilizing a situation that is far from stable; they could obviously lead to civilian casualties.

That is why this is necessary each time we, as parliamentarians, must consider sending equipment or troops.

I was rather disappointed this morning by the casual attitude of the government House leader. I have great respect for him. He is a man who believes in this institution; he started his career here washing the dishes of parliamentarians; he personifies perseverance and what one can achieve when one decides to get involved and dedicate one's life to a cause.

However, he suggested that we did not take seriously the possibility of a vote in this House. Granted, the motion does not call for one explicitly, but in all our remarks—whether the Bloc leader, the hon. member for Mercier or the hon. member for Saint-Jean—we have remained convinced that it is impossible to act sensibly without associating the parliamentarians to a decision of this magnitude.

This is not just a constitutional issue. I studied constitutional law. I am well aware that it is the prerogative of the executive branch of government—the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is smiling at me because he is encouraging me to continue studying. I took classes in constitutional law and I am aware of the prerogative. There is also my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, to whom we wish every success on this day after the congress, but I will not get into that.

There is something odd in what parliamentarians are saying, and there is a historical perspective we must take into account.

When the hon. member for Calgary Centre, a former prime minister, was Secretary of State for External Affairs in 1990, at the time of the first Gulf War, he moved a motion that 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.

What this resolution shows is that this is not the first time that Iraq has not complied with Security Council resolutions.

But, in 1990, Herb Gray—if I am not mistaken, he was the Liberal critic for external affairs—had made a request to the House. This is where the Liberals lack consistency, rigour and historic continuity. That is where it gets disappointing.

Herb Gray, one of the greatest parliamentarians in the history of this House, had requested, and I quote:

—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.

That is what the Bloc Quebecois has been saying since the beginning of this conflict. We are not naive. We are pacifists, which is a deep-rooted tradition in Quebec. However, we are not naive. We understand that there are times when the use of force is justified.

It is unbelievable that this morning, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons went to great lengths to make fun of what was said by the leader of the Bloc, the member for Mercier and the member for Saint-Jean. That is how politicians are discredited.

Why is it that when the Liberals were in the opposition they called for a vote on military intervention. We know why; it is because military intervention is not like fiscal policy, it is not like heritage policy, it is not like health policy. It can cost the lives of men and women.

That is why we must vote consciously. That is why we must weigh our actions. That is why we can never have too much information. That is why our parties have critics who follow this day to day, hour to hour.

That is how they have been behaving since this morning—with the exception of a few members. The member for Vancouver Centre made an extremely responsible speech by saying that yes, we are not naive and that we should debate the issue. I will come back to Mr. Blix's report.

We cannot deny that the outcome of our work as parliamentarians, the meaning of the motion today and the respect of our institution implies the duty to associate parliamentarians with a decision like this one.

Once again, the Bloc Quebecois has never said that we would refuse any type of intervention. This is possible, and we are reviewing the evidence.

I was reading that there are some questions. Yes, Saddam Hussein has been a bad leader. His behaviour has been reprehensible, that is clear. We should remember the mix of alliances that made the United States stand firmly by this man at times. However, that is not what is at issue. There are issues that must be resolved and 11 members out of 15 say that the inspections process must be given a chance. It has to go further, things must be done properly.

The connection that we are being asked to make sometimes between existing terrorist networks in Iraqi territory and the legitimacy of a U.S. response has not yet been demonstrated. Will that connection be demonstrated eventually? We will see.

The day when it is proven that there is indeed the slightest connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime, the Bloc Quebecois will obviously be reviewing its position. It will be a most determining factor in our decision. However, it is not the case at this time.

Eleven countries out of 15—and not any just any country, not countries that have been irresponsible in the past—say that the inspection process must be given another chance. The number of inspectors will soon be increased from 280 to 350.

In conclusion, this is a responsible motion which I think deserves the support of all parliamentarians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member refer several times to a putative need for more time to allow the inspections process to work.

I think his comment, although undoubtedly well intentioned, is based on a profound misunderstanding of the obligations that Iraq finds itself under UNSCR 1441 and the 15 resolutions that preceded it.

The model which these resolutions create, the obligation, is not on the weapons inspectors to play hide and seek in Iraq. It is not to multiply the number of inspectors to search and find hidden weapons, rather there is only one obligation under 1441 and the other resolutions and that obligation is on Iraq to immediately disarm. The inspectors are not searchers or investigators; they are verifiers. They are there to watch the Iraqi regime and to verify that it has destroyed its weapons of mass destruction.

Resolution 1441 states that the inspectors were not able to do their job after several years in the 1990s. It is asserted in resolution 1441 that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations over the course of 12 years leading up to this moment. The member said we need more time.

How much more time is he prepared to give and what kind of risks is he prepared to have the United States and other democracies tolerate as long as we know that this dangerous dictator is in the possession of weapons that can destroy tens of thousands of lives at his whim? How long is he prepared, and does he not understand that the obligation is on Iraq and not on the inspectors to verify destruction of these materials?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, who seems to be pushing for the hard line approach since the beginning of this debate, correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was the U.S. that asked for the inspections to stop back in 1998.

What I find incredible on the part of our colleagues from the Alliance is that not one of them has expressed concerns about the civilian population. They want us to assess the risk, but we do not have all the information we need to make a final assessment.

It is as if our hon. colleague did not take into account the risks involved in launching an attack on Iraq. How many young children would be killed? I read somewhere that it would be 500,000. Some humanitarian organizations have talked about a genocide.

When we have to take a look at the whole picture, pushing the hard line approach is not enough. We do not need to determine if we are doves, or hawks or some other kind of bird. What is important is to take into consideration all the different nuances. And in that, our Alliance colleagues have failed miserably so far today, I am sorry to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, I regret that in his response the member made it clear that in fact he is not familiar with UNSCR 1441 because he once again reasserted the canard that UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors left Iraq because of pressure from the United States. All 16 members of the UN Security Council last November, in unanimously passing resolution 1441, asserted at paragraphs 7 and 8 in the preamble that it was Iraq that failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors as required by resolution 687 and ultimately ceased all cooperation with these agencies in 1998. Paragraph 8 says the same thing at length.

How are we to take the member seriously when he asserts that it was the United States that terminated the inspections when in fact the unanimous resolution of the Security Council makes it clear that it was Iraq's non-compliance which led to the termination of those failed inspections?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one in the Bloc Quebecois, and that includes me, is claiming that Iraq did not commit any violations.

The issue is that, in the future, based on a full assessment of the situation, it is our hope that, if there is a military intervention, it will be conducted under the aegis of the UN. What distinguishes us from the official opposition is that we do not believe that the United States should engage in a military offensive without the approval of a second Security Council resolution.

Should there be a second resolution, we would like a vote to be held in the House, and this is what we are debating today.