Debates of Feb. 10th, 2003

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was shocked with the remarks by the hon. member for Halifax. I have learned to be sort of inured by the kind of inanity that I hear from the NDP on foreign policy matters but this is really remarkable.

She spoke for 20 minutes about an international crisis provoked by Iraq's non-compliance with 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions over the course of 12 years bringing the civilized world to the brink of violent conflict. In the course of that 20 minutes not once did she condemn Iraq for its continued violation of its international obligations. She spent the entire 20 minutes attacking the United States, the United Kingdom and allied democracies for insisting that Iraq comply and come to terms with the requirements of international security. The member has the obligation entirely backward.

She said that Secretary Powell had not presented hard evidence at the UN Security Council last week to persuade her. What exactly would constitute hard evidence for the member? Should he haul a load of chemical weapon warheads into the UN Security Council chamber? Would that suffice?

Further, I would like the member to clarify whether she actually said this. I believe she said that we should have United Nations peacekeepers enter Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses. Did she say that? If she did, what she is essentially advocating is the position she opposes. In other words, intervention in Iraq by foreign armed forces to force the Iraqi regime to comply with international law.

Finally, does she think the vote in this place by her predecessor as leader of the CCF, J.S. Woodsworth, in 1939 against the declaration of war with Germany, was morally and historically correct?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised about five or six issues and clearly I will not be allocated the amount of time necessary to respond.

Let me start with the very last question. I think the implication of the question is whether it is my position as the foreign affairs critic for the New Democratic Party, or is it the position of the NDP caucus, that we should take a totally pacifist view vis-à-vis the situation in Iraq. The answer is no. I made that clear in previous debates.

Second, the member is shocked that I did not use up my time in the debate about alternatives to war to once again talk about the demonic, diabolical, dictator Saddam Hussein. I do not see why any of us would spend all our time talking about something on which we agree. He is a dictator and demonic leader. The issue is not how many different ways we can describe that or how much of the House's time we can use up talking about that fact, but rather what is to be done about the situation.

Third, the member was very offended by my speech. I cannot say that it will cause me to lose any sleep this evening. However let me also remind the member that I was quoting extensively from the likes of former President Jimmy Carter, the current chair of the--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. John's West.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, for the record I will read the motion because I am not sure whether anybody who has spoken recently has read it and because there are a lot of Canadians watching this debate who are extremely interested in what is being said on this issue and who may not know exactly what we are debating.

The motion that has been put forth by the Bloc Quebecois states:

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

The ironic thing is that even though we are supposed to have parties that are on different sides of this entirely, if I heard rightly, and I listened carefully to those who spoke recently, if we pick what is behind what they are all saying, most of us are saying the same thing and very few of us are in total disagreement with the motion.

We are discussing this issue because the Bloc Quebecois, and on Thursday last the Canadian Alliance Party, brought forth motions. It is unfortunate that our debates are restricted to motions brought forth by opposition parties.

We should be debating an issue that is so important to this nation because the government brought forth a motion to the House. Whether it would be similar to the one we have today or similar to the one we had last week, that would be irrelevant. However it should be a motion that would open up debate and would give the government some clear cut direction.

The House might ask why, when the government is elected to govern and the government will do whatever it wants to do. Certainly that is the view of the current government. There is absolutely no doubt about that. We have seen that in relation to every issue that has been brought before the House.

Times have changed since the war of 1914, the war of 1939 and the Korean conflict. These were wars that were fought in another country of which we knew little and saw nothing. Wars today are fought before our very eyes. The negotiations, the planning, the strategies and the conniving are all laid out beforehand.

Sometimes we wonder why everything is so secret. We tell people when we will invade, how we will invade, what we will do and what the results will be. It is a different world we live in.

Because of that, people across Canada are well aware of what is happening. Not only are they aware, they also are very concerned about what it happening. They all have opinions on what is happening and they would like those opinions addressed. They would like their views heard and their questions asked.

How can that be done? It can be done right here because this is the only forum in the country where these views can be discussed openly, where the questions can be asked and where we have the individuals who can give the legitimate answers. This is the only forum which represents all the people across this great country.

As I said, it is unfortunate that it had to be the opposition parties that forced the debate.

Having said that, I have listened, as I said, to the members of the different parties as they spoke. A while ago I heard the member for Wild Rose stand and say quite clearly that nobody wants a war, which is basically what the NDP is saying, which is what the Bloc Quebecois is saying, which is what the Liberals are saying and which is what we are saying. Nobody wants a war.

Everyone also has said that if we must to go to war that there is a proper mechanism for doing that. We may not agree totally on that mechanism but I suggest that our differences are little when really pushed.

To again quote the member for Wild Rose when he said “Nobody wants a war”, that would be everybody's choice. However do we then sit back and do nothing about looking at that side of the issue?

Where are the great leaders of the past? We always talk about the leaders of wartime, the heroes who led us through the battles, who won or who lost but who, in winning or losing, caused irreparable damage to their countries and to the people of their countries. Sometimes these things could not have been provided and nobody held their heads higher in these confrontations than Canadians. However there were other times in history when wars, which seemed imminent, were prevented by the intervention of our great negotiators, our great diplomats, our great leaders who found the way to find peace instead of war.

I will go back to the days of the cold war when Russia seemed to be the enemy of the western world. Day after day we sat, listened and waited to see if Mr. Kruschev, or some of the others during that time, would push the button that would destroy the world. We were in fear. Russia was our enemy.

In 1972, when the Russian hockey team came to Canada to play the first four games of a great hockey tournament, it was almost as if we were being invaded by the enemy. We looked upon them as our enemies because they were Russians. When we found out how good they were they became an even worse enemy.

When our hockey players went into Russia, we all shuddered because they were going into a foreign country and we did not know if they would ever get out. I am sure there were times during that last game that some of them asked themselves the same question.

However exchanges like that began to open up doors, through other mechanisms besides those directly involved in the war measures. The armed forces, people connected with security and people whose jobs it is to talk war and peace, prevention and destruction, these people have a job to do and they are narrowly focused in relation to doing that job.

It is true that exchanges, such as our hockey games and our cultural exchanges, began to open up doors. The more we began to learn about other nations, the more we saw that a lot of people in this world were the same. As the old saying goes, “both ends of the rifle are the same”. Throughout the world many of us are the same, given a chance to really understand the other.

That is where the great diplomats, the great leaders of our time moved in and took advantage of such a situation. Canada over the years has had tremendous leaders. One of them, former Prime Minister Pearson, won the Nobel Peace Prize. It was not because he always led us in war but because he worked for peace.

The parts of the equation that I see missing in this whole charade are the advantages we have today compared to the past to understand and to know. We seem to be closing our eyes and our minds to some of the opportunities to open doors.

If there is a way to prevent a war that is what we should be concentrating on, not how we should enter the war.

How should we enter the war? Should we go if the United States says go because we are its neighbour, its ally and we have always been there? We should ask that question because a lot of people have been asking that.

Should we wait for the United Nations to make the decision on whether to go to war? If we thumb our nose at the United Nations, what will be the end result of that great organization? That again is argued by a lot of people.

Should we just say that we are pacifists, that we want nothing to do with war and not go at all? Some people would say that is the answer. However, as we know, if we want to be a player in the free world, if we want to defend democracy and the free world that we have because other people went before and put their lives on the line for us and for our country, then we have to follow them.

We should try, if at all possible, to find a way to settle the issue with Iraq peacefully. If we cannot, then we should be guided by the United Nations and be involved if it gets involved. I would agree to that and would support the motion to that degree.

However, I do not think we should close doors. When we look at the type of individual with whom we are dealing, there is always the possibility that the United Nations Security Council could vote to enter the fray and disarm Saddam Hussein, or we could see one country objecting. What do we do then? Do we say that because it is not unanimous we will participate only if the United Nations, totally accepted by the Security Council, agrees to enter the fray?

We need to open the door and make our own decision based upon the events and the facts of the time. That is where real leadership comes in. That is where we have to trust our government and the people involved within the total process. That perhaps is what leaves a lot of us lying awake at night worrying about the whole situation.

Time is running out. We have heard that said too often quite recently. We have heard it said by President Bush almost daily. We all know time is running out. Iraq has been given notice. It has been asked to co-operate, and people might say that to some degree it has. To what degree? Hopefully within the next few days that answer will be clear.

However there is no doubt that unless there is a major peace initiative over the next few days by people experienced in the field, leaders who are respected, to convince Hussein to leave Iraq and to go into exile, which was discussed earlier, or to unequivocally open up and let the inspectors do their jobs, people will want to go to war. The decision will rest heavily on our shoulders as to what we are going to do.

It has been said that Canada's stand to date has left us completely marginalized. We were once a country that was such a player in the world, not only in wartime but more specifically in peacetime, but we are no longer that great player.

Why is that? A country is just a large portion of land. What makes a country work, what makes a country powerful and what makes a country influential is the population that lives within the boundaries of that great country.

It is the people who lived here before, the leaders who ran our governments and who represented us internationally, these were the people who in the past gave Canada that great name as a player in international relations, particularly in relation to a country that sought peace first and then war.

What is it we are really trying to do? Are we just trying to disarm Iraq? Are we trying to find an excuse to go to war? Or are we looking for some peaceful situation to defuse a very explosive situation in the Middle East? We tried before, 10 or 12 years ago, and some people say that we should have finished the job, but what were we trying to do then? Were we successful? Is it entirely different now? It probably is, because it is a lot more serious now.

The interest that has built up in the destruction of the world, not just different parts of it, through terrorism, in particular over the last few years and since 9/11, has created such an awareness that people throughout the world are ready to participate in avenues of mass destruction. They just do not care, individually or collectively. They are out to get even. We might ask, get even for what? With proper discussions, those questions could be answered and maybe some of the people who are so caught up in their tunnel vision of destroying people they think are destroying them might realize that this is not the way it should be.

The unfortunate thing about all of this is that the leaders who eventually will make this decision have an awful weight on their shoulders. Hopefully it is some avenue of peace they can find, but if they go to war and our aim is to get Hussein, then the question is, how many have to pay the price in the interim?

Again I have a quote from an old song: It is not the ones who give the orders who are the first to die. That is always the case. Maybe if those who are going to make that decision look upon themselves as being the leaders in battle instead of saying “Go on, my troops, I am right behind you”, which is what most leaders do, then they might think twice about making such a decision.

I congratulate the Bloc Quebecois for bringing forth the resolution so that we can debate it and hear what others think of the part that Canada should play, our own views and the views of the people we represent. We must proceed with caution. I believe the steps must be: peace if at all possible, and if not, confrontation with others, not in some half-cocked manner. But if the time comes when a war has to be fought, then Canada cannot shirk its duties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for St. John's West for his remarks.

First I would like to note that the motion itself is flawed.

The motion says consider. The House is always considering something.

I think the motion should have read, “That this House approve the sending of troops to Iraq by the government only after the United Nations Security Council has passed a resolution explicitly authorizing a military intervention in Iraq”.

I believe what was intended, though, was that the government or Parliament should only approve or even debate sending troops to Iraq if a Security Council resolution suggests that this is something we should be doing. In other words, I believe the motion is intended to forestall the unilateral use of force in Iraq and that Canada should join the United States in that circumstance.

In that context, I believe and as a matter of fact the polls show that the majority of Canadians are opposed to Canada following the United States into a war in Iraq without United Nations approval. Indeed, the latest polls indicate that from 70% to 78% of Canadians oppose this.

I would ask the member opposite, is this a situation where MPs should follow the dictates of their conscience, obey the suggestions of their constituents and not support going into Iraq without a UN Security Council resolution?

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for his question. The hon. member has raised an extremely important question, a question which perhaps is at the crux of the reason why we are here, at the crux of what we are supposed to do.

Very few people across the country would have the intimate knowledge of what is going on that the members in this House have, or should have, particularly if government were forthcoming with the pertinent information. As we, or if we, and hopefully we would not, approach a time of crisis, the government should make sure that Parliament is well informed and well briefed about what is going on so that as representatives of the people we can make a decision.

When the crunch comes, there is no way in this world we are going to be able to poll all our constituents to get a majority of support. We were sent here to represent our constituents. They sent us here because they trust our judgment. They trust we will make the right decision based upon the right information.

As for an answer to the question, it is not a black or white answer. When the information comes forward and when the decision time comes, if it is not to go there undoubtedly will not be a problem. If it is to go, with or without the United Nations, when the crisis comes, then that is when government is going to have to look long and hard and is going to have to depend upon the wisdom of Parliament to direct it. All I can say because of the type of situation in which we are immersed is that we will have to use our best judgment based upon the facts at hand. I would think our people would place their judgment in us to make that decision.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the Progressive Conservatives. I listened quite attentively. He laid out some of the problems with the motion, in that if it were passed it would hamstring the position of the government to adhere to any possible involvement in some future conflict with Iraq, to be forced to adhere only if there were another, and I stress another, UN resolution. We have already had some dozen or so over the last 11 or 12 years that have not been complied with.

My concern, and a concern that I hear, is the fear that if something is not done at some point, and I alluded to this in my speech last week on this very issue, the UN could follow the demise of the League of Nations, which collapsed after its failure to prevent the dictators Mussolini and Hitler from gobbling up territory prior to the second world war.

I noticed that the hon. member said we have to proceed with caution. None of us want war. We and the member have said that, but I think that if we respect the UN we are going to have to at some point in time force compliance on the part of Iraq. I would like him to address that.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, again one of the things I have noticed about the debate today, unlike many debates we have had, is that it is serious and to the point. We do not get the flippant remarks and questions and the sarcasm usually thrown forth during these times.

The question raised by the hon. member is an extremely interesting and important one. When he talks about the future of the United Nations, there are two concerns as I see it. First, if the United Nations does not get involved and we do have a crisis because of Iraq, then of course the United Nations is going to be useless in the eyes of most of the world. On the other hand, if the United Nations is right in the decision it makes and the U.S. or others go off without being under the auspices of the United Nations, then we will question the power of the United Nations.

It is a very trying time for the organization, the United Nations itself. I believe it is a time when the decision makers within that august body are going to have to make sure that the decision they make is the right one. If not, they are going to be looked upon either as letting dictators like Saddam Hussein move in to take over the free world, as others have tried in the past, or as being so weak in making a decision that countries such as the United States and others, to prevent that, have to go on their own without the UN being part of it.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's West. Obviously he has reflected long and hard on this very difficult issue. The fact that he urges caution is indicative of that.

The member talks about not closing doors. I think that is certainly the position of the government, and it certainly is my position that we should use every opportunity to us to prevent war, to find a peaceful solution through the United Nations. This is what the Government of Canada has done. The Government of Canada is committed to the UN process. I disagree with anyone who suggests that Canada has been marginalized. The Prime Minister has met with many world leaders. I think he has played a significant role in this UN process.

I want to ask the hon. member for St. John's West about the motion itself. It seems to me that if we were to pass the motion it would in a sense compromise the executive powers of the federal government. It is the federal government, I assume, that through its diplomatic efforts knows more and has more information than ordinary citizens do and certainly more than we MPs do. Does the member feel that this kind of motion would compromise the executive power of the federal government?

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the quick answer to that is yes. Certainly any motion passed in the House which dictates to the government what to do compromises the powers of government. Whether we like it or not, government is elected to govern.

However, governments should govern based upon what their people want. If the dictates of the people, through their representatives in Parliament, are pointed in a certain direction, then undoubtedly it is something that government should look at and respect. However, if because of its almighty wisdom, which in this case I question very much, the government feels otherwise, then all I can say is that the government will have to pay for any decision it makes.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of the said motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 3 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Québec.

I am proud to speak on this motion, whose meaning is clear. It asks that Parliament and the government only send troops if there is a UN resolution authorizing the use of military intervention.

This motion is important because it allows us to discuss the basis of the position we have held and the basis of the opposition of the public everywhere. It is important to note that at this time support for this apprehended war is extremely weak except—it must be said—in the United States.

Elsewhere, there is opposition; in Europe, Canada—other colleagues have just commented on this—or in Quebec, where 49% are against war, even after a second UN resolution.

Is the public always against war? No. I remember Kosovo, the ethnic cleansing seen there and the desire for military intervention to prevent it. The Bloc Quebecois was very clear about this.

Our position is not to say no to war, but to clearly establish the importance of going through the United Nations at this extremely important and historic moment. Some say that resolution 1441 alone allows for military intervention under international law.

In fact, there are very few countries that claim this. However, many say—and this is especially true at the Security Council—that a second resolution is needed to authorize the use of military force to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Under these circumstances, wanting Canada to send troops only if there is such a resolution, is basically wanting to give peace every chance by giving the United Nations every opportunity to disarm Saddam Hussein by pressuring him to comply with the requirements of resolution 1441.

I would like to remind the House that the inspections process from 1991 to 1998 was effective. This has not been said enough. I would like to quote a text by Charles-Philippe David and one of his colleagues. Mr. David is director of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair at the University of Montreal. The text reads as follows:

UNSCOM's surprise inspections seem to have produced tangible results. UNSCOM will have destroyed more materials of mass destruction since 1991 than the entire coalition forces during the Gulf War in 1991. UNSCOM is estimated to have destroyed 48 SCUD missiles, 30 chemical and biological warheads, 60 launchers, almost 40,000 bombs and chemical shells, 690 tons of chemical agents and all Al-Hakam's biological weapons factories. Furthermore, UNSCOM forced Iraq to hide its weapons of mass destruction rather than developing them.

In his speech on Saturday, Kofi Annan also spoke of the effectiveness of UNSCOM and the United Nations inspections. So, these inspections have been effective.

Resolution 1441 has two basic components: demanding that Saddam Hussein actively disarm and trusting a new team to ensure disarmament and verify that disarmament is carried out properly.

Why would we now agree with President Bush, when he says, “The game is over?”. Honestly, I and the many constituents I saw in my riding this weekend think that this is not a game and that it is not over.

I must point out the importance of having the public's support in seeking a peaceful solution. Many people do not understand the relationship between disarmament that is slower than desirable, but that is continuing all the same, and the urgency of going to war, but not with just any means.

The Pentagon has said—whether it is true or just a ploy—that it will launch 3,000 bombs in 48 hours on the palaces which, as we know, are in Baghdad and in the cities, and then send troops into Baghdad.

Mere mention of this evokes horror. It must be kept in mind that the Iraqi people have suffered numerous wars since they have been under the heel of the dictator. They suffered during the 1990-91 war and under the embargo. Is there any urgency to launching into unrestrained war that does not even exclude the possibility of nuclear arms, rather than pursuing, for a limited period and not indefinitely, the disarmament process?

Thanks to France, Germany and Russia, which support the inspection process, an improved method has been proposed to help the inspectors to move ahead with this disarmament. France, Germany and Russia are going to table a resolution to ensure that, by stepping up technical and even military means, the intended objective can be met.

I want to make it clear that many find the legitimacy of this potential war somewhat dubious. For the war to gain legitimacy, there must of course be a certainty that it is legal under international law, that is there must be a second resolution, but also the objectives of the war must be made clear to all.

Is the great haste just to disarm Saddam Hussein, or could there be other objectives? I am not saying it is not the primary objective, but might there be others.

There might be such objectives as the desire to control gas and oil, most certainly with a view to ensuring U.S. hegemony. The United States' motive may be understandable, but rushing headlong into war cannot be accepted when other approaches are possible.

Being aware of those objectives does not, of course, mean sharing them. In order for there to be any legitimacy, as I have already suggested, there has to be a proper balance between the danger and resorting to war. International law does not permit pre-emptive strikes nor a war to overthrow a leader.

Peace must be given every possible chance and we must foresee any undesired consequences, such as making it hard to continue the war against terrorism, which is far more important.

We need to be able to count on the support of the Arab and Muslim countries and on public support. At this point in time, the consequences of a war, under the present circumstances, might be truly catastrophic.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the member for Mercier, I am very proud to talk about sending troops to Iraq. Like my colleague, I have seen that people have indeed accepted that we find strategies for peace instead of strategies involving sending troops to Iraq.

People find it hard to understand Canada's position on this important issue. Canada's position seems ambiguous. Canada is waiting to see what its neighbour will do. People expect us to take a stand here, in the House; they want a free vote on this issue.

The choice before us, for war or for peace, must be made at the United Nations. The best thing we can do, according to UN inspectors, is to give inspectors the time to do their work and allow Saddam Hussein to listen to reason for the good of the world.

In this context, the United States dominating another country is unjustified. The attitude of the U.S. shows that it is trying to pull a fast one over us, and Quebeckers and Canadians and people around the world are well aware of what is going on.

According to the final paragraph of resolution 1441, the United Nations, through the Security Council, must assess the evidence and then make a decision. Mr. Bush does not seem worried about this, and that is what is dangerous. Who needs evidence? The U.S. will go in anyway. Saddam Hussein's bad faith alone justifies the United States' intervention. How can Canada not clearly state whether or not it intends to support the United States?

We in the House must be able to vote on the appropriateness of sending troops to Iraq. Parliamentarians must also be allowed to assess the Security Council's evidence. We cannot take a position at this stage.

Canada is missing an opportunity to have its voice heard before hostilities break out on the ground. We are calling on this government to add to the debate, as France, Belgium, Germany and Russia are doing. The government should announce its true intentions.

I understand why Canada might not want to offend and therefore support its neighbour, the U.S. However, Canada must tell its neighbour that it is on the wrong track, that this is not the best idea it has had.

The attitude of the U.S. in this conflict is imperialist. Look how Mr. Rumsfeld criticized Europe today, how he said that Europe is not inclined to respect human rights in Iraq. That is ridiculous and lacks credibility.

Their goal is not to attack the government of Saddam Hussein, the people are not fooled that easily. Oil may be one of their goals, but their influence over the Middle East might be another one.

Washington is getting restless. The Security Council has its back against the wall. The moment of truth has come for the United Nations. Here is what Mr. Bush and his administration have to say. Soon, the United Nations will have to decide if they have what it takes to maintain peace. Such arrogance on the part of the United States.

Will sending troops be a more effective way to maintain peace? I doubt it. In what way is the U.S. attitude better for maintaining peace than UN inspections? The U.S. does not care about the United Nations; quite often, it has not fulfilled its obligations to this organization. It corrected this just before a war with Iraq. One has to wonder about the confidence they have in this organization.

The U.S. has opted, of course, for the logic of war. For instance, by mid-January, it had submitted a list of requests for support to NATO, measures to protect Turkey, one of Iraq's neighbours. Does this not prove that, as early as mid-January, the U.S. had adopted a logic of war?

So, what is going on in Baghdad? According to both chief inspectors, Messrs. Blix and ElBareidi, the Iraqi authorities have released new disarmament documentation. Cooperation has improved.

I believe we should also listen to the public. Some 46% of Canadians are opposed to sending troops, with or without a UN resolution. Another 43% of them would support a U.S. action, should there be a UN resolution. We must be extremely careful and listen to the public, and hopefully Canada will also.

Let us not be swayed by arguments meant to influence public opinion. Some say, for instance, that it would help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; I do not think so. We are told that there are links with al-Qaeda. These two regimes are fighting, they are enemies. Even the CIA is trying to convince Bush not to go there.

They want us to believe they are doing it to protect human rights in Iraq. I do not buy that. It will be urban warfare and hundreds of thousands of people will perish in Iraq. We must be vigilant.

Like my colleague from Mercier, I believe inspections must be allowed to go on, to take place, with more people on the ground as demanded by the new arms inspectors in Iraq.

Being opposed to the war in Iraq does not mean that we believe it is legitimate to possess arms of mass destruction or nuclear weapons. Nor does it mean that Saddam Hussein is acting in good faith, that his regime is not undemocratic and is not guilty of human rights violations. The choice is not between doing nothing or going to war, but rather between going to war or preventing it. I believe that the UN arms inspectors are leaning that way.

France, Germany and Belgium seem to be leaning that way too. This is what various governments in the world are being told by their citizens. What can justify war? Even the U.S. Constitution says that it can only be in self-defence or in case of necessity. That is certainly not the case now.

We need hard evidence. Evidence that something is true, that it can be proven as such. We need concrete, tangible, formal proof and incriminating evidence. It needs to be proven that Iraq possesses arms of mass destruction. Every site was inspected and nothing was found. According to several scientific observers, it is scientifically impossible for Iraq to have arms of mass destruction. After the country was disarmed in 1991, all its sites were destroyed.

Will countries give their approval based on assumptions made by the United States and its British ally? I hope not. This is why we need help from people. Those who want real peace strategies should speak out.

Are circumstances in which one country can attack another not defined in international law? It is called casus belli .

Does the fact that a country possesses weapons of mass destruction justify an attack on that country? If the answer is yes, there would be more than one war today on this planet. Does Israel not possess such weapons, as well as North Korea, India and Pakistan? This is why we have to find other long term solutions to ensure that countries that possess such weapons are under close scrutiny by the United Nations. We must develop strategies based on maintaining peace. A diplomatic strategy is more reassuring than what the United States is preparing to do by attacking Iraq. That is what Washington wants.

What is on the table is a willingness on the part of Saddam Hussein to cooperate more fully; he agrees to be more open. Certainly we must be careful. We must increase the number of inspectors and intensify the inspection process.

A strategy based on means to avoid this war seems far removed from the options lined up by Washington. This is cause for concern. In this context, Canada should encourage the Americans not to pursue their war plan.

The Americans are probably thinking that they must not lose face, since their troops are already there. Their actions will surely be dictated by their ego. Canada should be among those countries trying to influence the United States in order to prevent a massacre that would cost hundreds of lives. Saddam Hussein must be driven against the wall by inspections, not by bombs.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.

In his state of the union address President George Bush said that Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction on whole villages “leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured”.

The president failed to mention that the United States supplied tonnes of VX nerve gas to Iraq in the 1980s--back when Iraq and the U.S. were buddy-buddy. On the very day that the UN confirmed Iraq's use of chemical weapons the U.S. envoy to Iraq, none other than Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, was in Baghdad to normalize diplomatic relations with Iraq, offer support for the war against Iran, and subsidies on preferential trade with Iraq.

In his state of the union address President Bush said:

International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq... If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

He was absolutely right. However, according to Amnesty International, the Philippines, an ally of the U.S. in the war against terrorism, uses techniques of torture such as electro shocks and the use of plastic bags to suffocate detainees. Members of the poor, or marginalized communities, including women and children who are suspected of committing criminal acts are particularly vulnerable.

Will we bomb the Philippines and any other nation that tortures its citizens? While we should be addressing these issues, bombing innocent people and further victimizing them is not the answer.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said the UN would lose all credibility if it did not support an attack on Iraq and that it would go the way of the League of Nations, and become irrelevant and die. I do not believe the U.S. administration wants a restructured and stronger UN as Canada and many other countries do. It has consistently refused to pay its dues and undermines the UN in countless other ways.

The U.S. administration does not believe in taking a multilateral approach to international problems. It refuses to support the International Criminal Court and the ratification of the treaty that would ban landmines that kill and maim thousands of innocent civilians every year.

When I hear the U.S. administration say it would hold the oil fields in trust for the Iraqi people I question what this proposed war is really all about. Would it be so intent on taking control of Iraq if recent reports had not indicated that Iraq has more oil than Saudi Arabia. I do not think so.

In his attempt to persuade the Security Council to authorize an attack on Iraq Secretary of State Colin Powell heaped praise on a British intelligence document which, he said, described in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.

An embarrassed British government admitted last Friday that large parts of the intelligence dossier on Iraq were copied from published academic articles, some of which were several years old, and some of the words were deliberately changed to strengthen the argument for war. That means the secretary of state for the most powerful nation on earth based part of his last ditch argument for an attack on Iraq on plagiarized information based on documents that were more than 12 years old.

Saddam Hussein is a despot and a tyrant. He is that and more, but bombing and killing innocent people is not the answer. I said bombing and killing, not collateral damage as the Pentagon describes it. If America were to attack Iraq real flesh and blood, children, mothers and fathers would be bombed to bits. What happened to the war against al-Qaeda and the war against terrorism? We were going to root them out of all of their cells. We knew this would be a long and arduous task. Perhaps it is easier and more high profile to attack Iraq.

Senator Edward Kennedy recently said that America cannot expect the international community to salute the American flag and march with it to war when the administration has failed to make a convincing case for doing so. The Democrats and the majority of the American people do not support an attack on Iraq. Many Americans agree with Senator Kennedy that the terrorist threat posed by al-Qaeda and North Korea's nuclear capability require more immediate attention than Iraq.

We know George Bush wants to get rid of Saddam, but there must be a way to deal with that without killing innocent people. If regime change is what the Americans want, I am sure they know how to go about that without killing innocent civilians. War, with or without the UN, is not the best answer.

Even if the UN eventually does say yes to war, that would be because it is being bent and twisted to accommodate the demands of the U.S. administration. There are other voices offering better solutions and those voices must be heard. We should be focusing our attention on bringing about peace in the Middle East, not aggravating the hostilities in that region, as I believe an attack on Iraq would do.

In closing, I want to speak on behalf of families in Iraq who could be bombed to bits by U.S. warplanes before the end of this month. They bear no responsibility whatsoever for whether the government of Iraq is or is not complying with UN resolution 1441. They have no say whatsoever on what their government does or does not do on the world stage or in the immediate region. All their energies are focused on surviving as best they can in a land devastated by non-stop wars and the life-crippling sanctions that have been imposed on their country.

I have neither seen nor heard anything over the last few months of debate that would justify taking the life of a single Iraqi citizen. I can see no basis on which the House, the Government of Canada, the United Nations Security Council, or the United States and its allies can justify burying entire families beneath the debris of bombed apartment buildings.

I urge all members of the House to keep their mind's eye on the families in Iraq. Let us think of a young girl playing on the dusty street outside a rundown apartment building. Let us think of her growing up, getting married and having children, sons and daughters. Then let us think of her young life being snuffed out before the end of this month by a bomb dropped from an American warplane. Let us think of that young girl. She deserves to live. Do not let her die.

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

Mr. Speaker, the remarks of my hon. colleague opposite reflect once again that knee-jerk Liberal anti-Americanism can sometimes be so thick that it prevents serious objective consideration of serious foreign policy threats to the security of the world.

The hon. member opposite suggested that the crisis which the world now faces is simply a question of American unilateral imperialism, a desire to control Iraqi oil, and so on. She did not for one moment reflect on the 12 years of efforts to cause the Iraqi regime to comply with the requirements of 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions. She did not mention that 12 years of sanctions have failed to produce a meaningful result. She did not mention that Iraq, according to resolution 1441, is in violation of its ceasefire obligations from 1990.

I would like the member to respond to the following comment. It states:

Canada should be using its influence within the United Nations to persuade the members of the Security Council to at last do the right thing and authorize the removal of the Iraqi war criminal. It is crucial that the Security Council authorize any action for one cannot enforce the ethics of international law by breaking international law. Saddam Hussein deserves a reckoning: Canada must do everything it can to bring him to justice, not because of American--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Beaches--East York.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to suggest that this is anti-American. It has nothing to do with being anti-American. It has to do with dealing specifically with a situation which yes, it has been 12 years and it has taken time, but there are inspectors in Iraq today.

The United States wants to have a U.S. led aggression. Canada was one of the countries that said no. We said that we work through the United Nations. It is important to maintain the integrity and the strength of the UN system, the multilateral system.

Inspectors are in Iraq and until such time as there is a chance to continue to inspect we should give peace a chance.

Why have we not looked at what this might do in the region? We talk about urban warfare door to door. We talk about cutting off power and water. Have we thought about the possibility of hundreds of thousands of refugees, of the possibility of igniting war in the Muslim world in that area? Have we talked about what that would mean in terms of increasing and igniting further al-Qaeda? By the way not only is it probably linked to Saddam Hussein, but I understand it has links to 60 countries. Have we thought about the ramifications of this action before we even try to do it?

It is not as simple as getting up one morning and deciding we will go over there and hit hard and it is over the next day with no casualties and nobody will be killed. There will be civilians in Iraq that will be killed. They will die of dysentery and probably of famine. Many Iraqis will leave that country and will end up in refugee camps. We do not know what the reaction will be in the whole region. We are talking about an extremely sensitive area. Meanwhile North Korea has openly said, “We have nuclear weapons and we do not want you guys to bother us”.

What the member is saying is let us go right now. The member's position is to go unilaterally with the U.S. My position is that we wait, we work and we allow the process to work. We have to allow the peace process to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find this strange. We all know of the horrors of war. There is nothing good about war at all.

I wonder where the member was when Saddam Hussein destroyed 200,000 people in his own country, women and children. There was great suffering and horror.

It is agreed that the man should be brought to justice. How does the member think it should be done when he has an entire military force of over one million people in Iraq behind him? What is the solution? How do we get Saddam Hussein to answer to these horrible crimes?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I said very clearly in my speech that, yes, he did kill thousands of his own people. At that time the U.S. said nothing when the UN was busy dealing with it. The U.S. was there normalizing its relations with Iraq because that is what suited it at the time. Not all the world was upset.

Right now I am saying we have to ensure that Saddam Hussein lives up to UN resolution 1441. We do not have to do it by bombing. We can do it through inspections. There is still time. There is no emergency for us to go to war tomorrow. Why do we have to go to war tomorrow? Why can we not give the process the chance it deserves in order--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time has expired.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important debate, principally because the Americans are listening. Canada and the United States have been the best of friends since the second world war, the most intimate of friends, sharing their deepest secrets on intelligence and weapons development and atomic energy. The Americans trust the Canadians and when one has a trusted friend, the best thing that trusted friend can do is tell it as that trusted friend sees it. The reality is that Canada really does see a problem with the prospect of unilateral action by the Americans in Iraq.

I accept the findings of Colin Powell. I accept that Mr. Bush wants to settle the problem of Iraq for honourable reasons. It is true, as the member for Wild Rose just said, that Saddam Hussein is an awful dictator and there are many, many reasons why we should hope that there should be a regime change. I am not so sure that the threat posed by Iraq is a threat as serious as North Korea, which I think is a very, very dangerous threat, but nevertheless we have to accept that the Americans have the very best intentions in this proposal to attack Iraq and the proposal to attack Iraq regardless of the decision of the UN Security Council.

Now, here is the problem and I hope the people in the American embassy are watching and listening. If the UN Security Council rejects a unilateral attack or an attack on Iraq because there is not sufficient evidence and if this government, as it has the power to do, decides it will join a unilateral attack on Iraq, I will be one of the first on this side of the House to try to vote no confidence in my government.

The way our system works right now is the government, the executive, has the right to declare war and I agree with that principle, but it also must face Parliament. The reason why I would have to press no confidence in my government if it supported a unilateral attack on Iraq is because 66% of Canadians are opposed to such action and the total number of Canadians who are opposed to an attack on Iraq is about 80%.

You cannot have democracy two ways, Mr. Speaker. Either we represent the interests of our constituents and the will of our constituents, or we do not. When the feeling of constituents is so overwhelming against a war in Iraq, then a parliamentarian must listen.

Mr. Speaker, I would observe that this overwhelming opposition to a unilateral attack on Iraq does not stop at Canada. According to the Christian Science Monitor , 90% of Europeans are opposed to a unilateral attack on Iraq. If we go down the figures, Mr. Speaker, we find in Germany 80% are against a U.S. led unilateral attack on Iraq; 75% of the French; 90% of Turks, even though they have had to come to an arrangement with respect to air bases, but that is self defence. But the reality is the people in these countries are overwhelmingly opposed; and 66% of people in the U.K.

What I would implore the U.S. president to consider is: it is not a question of what the world leaders are saying; it is a question of what the ordinary people in the world are saying. They have seen a presentation by Colin Powell. They are not convinced that it justifies an attack on Iraq unilaterally without UN support. If they feel that, Mr. Speaker, and the United States goes ahead, what will be lost is enormous credibility on the part of the Americans and goodwill in the world.

The difficulty is when you are a superpower, you labour under the disability of always being perceived as a bully. And when you are a superpower it becomes more and more incumbent upon you to work with others in order to achieve legitimate aims. We can say that a regime change in Iraq is a legitimate aim, but it is not legitimate in world opinion if it is done unilaterally by the world's superpower.

What I fear so much, Mr. Speaker, is the aftermath of Iraq might settle the problem of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but I am afraid it will unleash a kind of cultural hatred that will spread around the world and the hatred will be against American culture. That is the fear. That is the danger that the Americans are running.

The cost of that in American assets alone is dreadful to contemplate, not only in the loss of investments abroad, not only in the fact that Americans will not be able to travel freely abroad because they will be afraid of attack not just from Muslims and the various dictatorships of the world, but also those people in other lands who already have suspicions about American culture, who are already afraid of an American culture that spreads across the planet.

Most of all, what will be lost? What will be lost is the ability of the Americans to say to the world, “We stand for freedom. We stand for the rights of everyone. We stand for working together for world peace”. That is what they will lose and it will be the biggest loss of all.

If the terrorists ever had a hope of destabilizing the world and hurting the United States, that hope will be fulfilled if the Americans invade Iraq without the support of the UN Security Council.