Debates of Feb. 6th, 2003

Privilege

[The Speaker]

As I have indicated already, the Chair will continue to consider this matter and I thank the hon. member for her presentation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my time with the hon. member for Yukon.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in this debate. I would like to trace the history of the role of the Canadian Parliament in relation to military operations. This role is very different from the one that some members have presented.

Between 1947 and 2001, Canada sent troops to take part in 42 missions abroad. Fourteen of these missions were the subject of a debate in this House. I wish to point out that since this government was first elected, it has kept the promise that it made in the 1993 red book to “expand the rights of Parliament to debate major Canadian foreign policy initiatives, such as the deployment of peacekeeping forces—”

Indeed, since 1993, our government has consulted Parliament through take note debates on the deployment of peacekeeping troops in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. It is now consulting Parliament regarding the situation in Iraq, and we had a debate on this issue last week.

I spoke of the history of some of this. In World War II, Parliament did not vote on the declaration of war. The House voted indirectly on the proclamation of the state of war with Germany as it was the subject of estimates for the “defence of Canada”. It did vote on the state of war with Italy, but not at all regarding Japan, Hungary, Romania and Finland.

In the case of Korea, the sending of troops to Korea was debated in the House but no resolution was offered and of course there was no vote. In response to a question in the House on September 8, 1950, the then prime minister stated about a resolution authorizing the sending of troops:

No, sir; that would be something which has never been done. The Government announces to Parliament what its policy is, and asks Parliament for the ways and means to carry it out. It is for that reason that we have our appropriations bill. If Parliament does not authorize the ways and means to carry out the policy, it cannot be carried out.

The order in council putting troops on active service in Korea was tabled in the House on September 9, 1950, but was not voted on. An appropriations bill for defence was tabled and voted on later and that is how the policy took place.

In the case of the gulf war, the government announced the deployment of troops and ships on August 10, 1990, prior to a September 15 order in council placing the troops on active service. At that time Parliament was not sitting. Parliament did not reconvene until September 24, at which time it debated a government motion and there was a debate at that time and a vote. A modified version of the motion calling for a “further resolution...in the event of the outbreak of hostilities” involving Canada was adopted on October 23.

In November 1990, there was a debate and a vote on a motion supporting the UN Security Council, and in January a debate and a vote on a motion to reaffirm that support took place. However, it should be noted that Canadian troops were already engaged in air strikes by the time the motion was adopted on January 22, 1991.

During the Kosovo crisis, the government consulted Parliament on a regular basis. So, a number of take note debates have been held. It was the same thing with Afghanistan.

We had debates here in Parliament.

Let us see what was done elsewhere. The Australian example has been used in the House. The Australian House of Representatives has begun a take note debate on Iraq. To date there has been no vote by the Australian house. That is simply not so. Like our own Prime Minister, Prime Minister Howard said that he would prefer a second UN resolution if military action were undertaken at all, not at all the way that is depicted either.

Let us talk about the text of the motion. Let us remember that in the House a few moments ago an hon. member said that he would take the Prime Minister up on his offer, that if he can guarantee that he will schedule the official opposition allotted day the day after the government makes a decision to involve Canadian troops, then they will withdraw their motion right here and right now. The motion has not been withdrawn and the Prime Minister has answered yes.

[An hon. member]

Do it in writing.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The hon. member across says to do it in writing. The Prime Minister has done it on the floor of the House in front of all Canadians.

I think what we are hearing here is that the government offered yes as an answer, and the opposition was not prepared to hear yes and now it cannot deal with it. That is the problem.

Now let us deal with the flaws in the motion itself. The first flaw--

[An hon. member]

Wouldn't let us vote on Tuesday.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes, we will. We will have two votes, on Thursday.

The first flaw is that it proposes a process that is already in place. As I said, under existing procedures there is a virtually weekly opportunity, and in this one there would be the next day, because it has been promised by the Prime Minister and repeated by me, on the next sitting day of course.

In other words, the motion is unnecessary. The member says the next day. It is fine for a member to suggest that Parliament could be recalled the next day. It is fine to suggest that for members who live in Toronto, Montreal and perhaps in Vancouver, who could get here. Does the member for Yukon not have the same rights? Does the member for Labrador not have the same rights? Are all members not equal here? Do they not all have the same right to participate in a debate? I challenge the hon. members: I believe that they do.

The second flaw in the motion is even worse and that is the wording of the motion. The premise of the motion is that the government will take a decision to involve Canada in the particularly described military action, that being war against Iraq.

I am not prepared to say that today. I am not prepared to have my name stand by a motion that says that the House concurs in the decision by the government regarding Canada's involvement in military action to disarm Saddam Hussein. I am not prepared to agree with that right now. What would happen tomorrow if we did agree with that right now? Who would run to Washington with it from right across the way and say our government has already decided, that it is in the motion that we passed in the House? That is what they would say tomorrow. That is too cute by half.

We will not presuppose that the government has already announced that which it has not already announced. I, for one, am willing to give peace another chance.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs made it clear this morning that the government is not committed to such a military participation. Hopefully it never will be, but we do not know that yet. However, if this motion were to be adopted, as I said with its underlying presupposition that the government will take such a decision, those who put the motion will doubtlessly claim that the adoption of the motion constitutes a direction by the House to the government to commit itself to military action. In other words--

[An hon. member]

Nonsense.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

If those across the way say this is nonsense, let them withdraw their motion the way they said in exchange for getting the floor the next sitting day after such a deployment, heaven forbid that there would be one. Let them do that. It was their offer. They do not want it anymore. We know why they would not. It is because they want a positive vote on the motion so they can use it to the ends that they have already identified. I do not want to be a part of that. I am surprised that anyone in the House would vote for that motion as worded.

We are willing to give the undertaking for the next sitting day to have an opposition day. We are willing to do that. That is going further than people have done before, in a long, long time, but that is a very different thing than presupposing that the House concur in the decision by the government regarding Canada's involvement in military action to disarm Saddam Hussein.

There is another thing wrong with this.

In six months or in a year, if there were no large-scale military operation, the deployment of two, three, four or six soldiers on a peacekeeping mission in Iraq would be governed by that motion, because it will still be in effect.

They could have taken an additional 15 minutes to think about this motion before writing it. Or they could withdraw it now, not at the request of the government, but at the request of the opposition, and I mentioned the hon. member who proposed this motion. Unfortunately for him, he got a yes to a question, when he expected a no.

In my opinion, and in the government's opinion, we must vote against this motion. We do not want to give any indication that, today, we are ready for a military invasion. That is not the government's position. We will wait for the report of Mr. Blix. We will give peace a chance.

I am not saying that there will never be a military intervention. I am praying that there is never one in this case. This is my hope. And I will definitely not give anyone an opportunity to raise the bar the way some would wish to do today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really wish that the hon. House leader for the government would have taken the time to read the motion properly. He is picking out one piece of the motion and trying to pretend that it is what the vote would be on, the next vote that we are having, the actual motion, and that is not the case at all.

As for his taking us up on our offer, let us understand this very clearly. The problem is that the Prime Minister said yes, if we will withdraw our motion he will guarantee that we have a votable opposition day the next sitting day. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the government happened to send our troops to Iraq in support of our allies at the start of the March break, and if it happened to be a very short altercation, hopefully, by the time the two week break was over what would be the point in having a debate and a vote? We are not going to fall for that: It is the next day after the decision is taken, not the next sitting day.

The hon. member went on at some length about the history of votes on military intervention by our country. He went back to World War II and the Korean war, but let us talk about something a little more recent. I will quote from Hansard of January 17, 1991, regarding Canada's participation in the gulf war:

Had we been asked the appropriate question, which is of course should Canada go or not go to war, I would have nevertheless voted against it. But I think I had a right and my constituents had a right to have that fundamental question posed and to have all of us speak on the question that should have been before Parliament.

That was what the hon. member said in 1991. Why does he not stand up now and vote for the motion so that all MPs can have a vote on this important issue?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Let us try and reason this with the hon. member a little. He is saying, let us have a vote about us having another vote, the other vote to be about a motion worded today about something that may or may not happen in the future, but the text of which is determined today, about a particular military action that they are identifying today which may not even happen, let alone happen in another form. That is what is being asked for from across the way right now. Canadians, I think, will understand what they are asking.

Not only that, but when it was realized earlier today that this is a flawed process, which no doubt it was, otherwise why would they have put the proposition, an officer of the House, the whip of the official opposition, said that if the Prime Minister can guarantee that we will schedule the official opposition--but of course the scheduling does not involve the official opposition, we schedule, and it is up to the opposition members to sort that out among themselves--an allotted day the day after the government makes the decision--

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

The day after. Not the sitting day.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

But that is the scheduling. It does not take place that day. The debate is the day the House sits.

In any case, he is saying the day after the government makes a decision to involve Canadian troops, and then they will withdraw their motion right here, right now. That was almost an hour ago and it has not happened. Clearly there was no intention to withdraw that motion under any circumstances. There was an intention to get the text of a motion that presupposes a military participation adopted by the House today. That is the purpose. It is clear. Otherwise they would have withdrawn it, and there is still time.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to watch the high energy and the passion with which this debate is taking place over procedure and the back and forth as the government and the opposition try to outmanoeuvre each other as usual.

Surely both parties are missing the point here, which is that Canadians expect us to have a debate and a vote. There are 301 members of Parliament who are here in this place to conduct a democratic exercise, and to have that democratic exercise and a vote before a decision is made.

That is what I would like to put to the government House leader. Why is the government so afraid of having this vote take place before that decision is made? We have heard about hypothetical situations. There is a precedent in the House of Commons, Kosovo for example, where debate and a vote took place before there was a decision made. Why can that not happen today? I ask the hon. member that question because that is really the crux of the matter here.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a difficult question for me to answer. I am being asked why the motion proposed by the official opposition and amended by another opposition party does not contain the words the hon. member thinks it should contain. She is asking that the words should have read “before deployment”.

The government, of course, does not write the motions for opposition days. Perhaps we could volunteer our services. I have a feeling there would probably be some disagreement on the other side if we attempted to do that.

That is not what is being asked. The official opposition and, if I understand it correctly, the Bloc Québécois through its amendment are not asking that either. They are asking that we identify now the specific theme of the motion, that it be deemed moved and seconded, which presumes that the person moving the motion today would also move the proposition on that day and that it occur after the deployment.

The proposition raised by the hon. member, and it is an interesting one I suppose, is not before the House.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to speak to the perilous situation in Iraq because of the consequences it could have for Canadians everywhere. This situation is perilous to the stability in the Middle East. It is perilous to the lives of innocent people. This is a serious debate, as are the consequences.

We should think of the possibility of one of our close friends or loved ones being killed, maimed, or hospitalized for life. This could be the result of us taking the wrong action in this perilous Iraq situation. The question would be, how would happen? Would it be a relative in the armed forces fighting in Iraq? Would it be a weapon brought here by a terrorist, given to him by Iraq, that we did not harness? Would it be a terrorist attack from an Islamic extremist from another country inflamed by an attack on Iraq?

In one respect this is the easiest issue I have ever dealt with in my riding. At the time I wrote these remarks 100% of the constituents who had contacted me were against going to war unilaterally at this time given the evidence that has been presented.

[An hon. member]

Was that both of them?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Since that time, about that many have come on side and actually think we should go to war with Iraq, perhaps three or four out of the 30,000 constituents.

I have made it clear in the House and across the country in the National Post of the aversion of Yukoners toward going to war with Iraq at this time. I have just returned from a security conference in Asia and once again I made it clear to the 16 leading nations of the world gathered there that Yukoners had no appetite for going to war unilaterally with the United States at this time, based on the evidence that has been presented.

What do we want to do in the future, with future conditions and future situations? What we do not want is a weapon supplied by a despotic regime in Iraq taken to Canada and unleashed from a suitcase. What we do not want is a tyrannical Saddam Hussein to destabilize the Middle East with theft, terrorism, mayhem and aggression.

The important question of whether to go or not to go would be answered by the answers to the following question. What is the greatest present danger to peace in this world? Is it even in Iraq? What about Zimbabwe and the genocide in Africa? What about the nuclear threat in North Korea? What about the 400 missiles presently aimed at Taiwan and increasing every year that could totally destabilize Asia? What about al-Qaeda and its connected organizations around the world? What about the 20,000 nuclear warheads left over in 120 sites all over Asia after the breakup of the Soviet Union?

As perhaps chess grandmasters do, we should think about the moves ahead and their potential consequences. What about the countries that we will overrun in an invasion on Iraq? What would we feel like if some country overran part of Canada on its way to another war? What about the countries adjacent to Iraq, within its missile range? Why are they not all on side in a coalition to attack Iraq? If the people who are most threatened by the possibility of the aggression of Iraq, which is quite weakened at this time, are not on side, why would we be, an ocean away?

When a lot of the world is this strongly against a unilateral action against Iraq with the present evidence, we should think of the dangers of inflaming and giving ammunition to hundreds of terrorists in those Islamic radical groups and we should think of those radical groups inflaming, infiltrating and performing terrorist acts in Canada.

We should think of the over 100 million presently very peaceful Indian Muslims in India and the Middle East, or the Islamic world being inflamed by western aggression on Iraq without sufficient evidence, or Arab governments that are presently on our side fighting the war against terrorism with us. We certainly have not been totally successful yet. When those regimes that are in a tender balance, such as Pakistan, crumble because of the ammunition that we give them without sufficient evidence for invading Iraq, they will once again become havens for terrorist groups that can then train and perform acts of aggression comparable to September 11.

I want us to contemplate the following scenario. Let us say we send our troops into Iraq, the 150,000 troops that are presently heading that way, and they surround the millions of people in Baghdad. In the middle of Baghdad is Saddam Hussein, the dictator, the aggressor, the sadistic killer, with his palace guard surrounded by thousands and thousands of innocent civilians. What exactly will we do in that situation? It would be very hard to retreat and have any credibility, but when the only option is to wage an attack and thousands and thousands of innocent civilians are at risk, what are the consequences, what do we gain, and is that the most dangerous threat to peace in the world at this time?

The last point I would like to make in deference to my constituents who I try to represent is to relate two stories. First, a young couple came into my office with two small children who said they never go to their MP's office because they are not the type of people who are very political. They were upset and were trying to explain the situation to their children. For the future of their children, they wanted to ensure their MP knew that they did not believe it was right at this time to engage in aggression with Iraq.

Second, I was at a reception about 10 days ago and an elderly lady told me that she had four grandchildren who were similar in age to the Canadian military people who could be going to Iraq at this time or in the very near future should we join in aggressive action. She was virtually in tears because she thought this was unnecessary, there was no proven reason to do this, and it would not enhance the security of Canadians.

Based on all of this I would ask the people who will ultimately make the very serious decision for all Canadians to think carefully of all of these ramifications. We should think of the detailed ramifications around the world, including the Islamic world, and where there could be bad consequences from any action. We should focus on how to preserve the health of Canadians and what would be best for the most innocent people in the world.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting speech and I am sure it was very heartfelt.

On behalf of the Canadian Alliance I attend the Council of Europe where I heard firsthand testimony from a Kurdish woman who explained what had happened in her country with Saddam Hussein using chemical warfare against his neighbours as a test. During this test there were many people killed, but worse than the killing was the fact that it changed the DNA of those survivors for the rest of their lives. The result included spontaneous abortions and many birth defects. There were also other worse things that happened to these people. Although they still walk, they are dead. Their DNA has been changed forever and their history has been wiped out.

Would the member who has just spoken concur with me that war is the last thing we want as a country, but we have an obligation to the people we represent to ensure that everything remains stable, safe and secure for Canadians. Would he concur that the best way to do that with a man like Saddam Hussein, who earned the name “the butcher”, is to stand with our allies and make it clear without any question that we will make him do what the UN has asked him to do, and if he does not, we are prepared to back that up with force?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's thoughtful, insightful and important question adds very much to today's debate. Her eloquent comments and her excellent question allow me to elaborate on the points I did not have time to outline.

Saddam Hussein has used these weapons not only on his neighbours but also on his own people. Over 220,000 people have been killed. People are constantly arbitrarily imprisoned in his jails. People are murdered and tortured. Everyone in the House agrees there is evidence of all that. He should be stopped from doing what he is doing. Many of his own people want that. In theory, we had hoped that his own people would cause a change, but they may not.

I was delighted to hear the member say that war is the last thing we should do. I am not a pacifist. I am not opposed to war. I am very proud of the times when Canada had to go to war to preserve peace, such as in the second world war. I agree with the member that war should be the last thing to do.

I do not think we have comprehensively outlined sufficient alternatives. With mild abrogation of the measures in resolution 1441, what steps have we outlined before war? What have we said we would do, opposed to killing innocent people? What are the steps we would take to resolve this and to put pressure on that regime to come up with a peaceful solution and other mechanisms? What are some creative alternative solutions? Hopefully in this and further debates on Iraq some people will come up with solutions.

I agree with the member that it will be a last resort if more evidence turns up that there is credible danger to Canadians and more harm will be done by not using military force. I have listened to the options put forward from around the world and doing this at the wrong time could cause destabilization of millions of people around the world. I do not think the world should take inappropriate action at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the member for Yukon did not adequately reply to my colleague's quite thoughtful question. I think the gist of her question was what he would advocate we do to reinforce United Nations resolution 1441. He never adequately answered what he proposes to do, other than to say that we should come up with some innovative thinking. The world community has tried sanctions against that country and that despot for 11 years. It has not worked.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Elk Island.

Let me state very clearly for the record that I am not advocating war. No Canadian in their right mind wants a war, but the dithering of the government on the issue of supporting our allies and backing up United Nations resolution 1441 with a real and credible threat of serious consequences is nothing short of reprehensible.

The subject matter we are debating today could not be more timely, given United States Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the United Nations Security Council yesterday. In his speech he brought forward new evidence that condemns the Iraqi leader for consistently deceiving, and more important not complying with, the United Nations demands for a transparent, unhindered inspection process under resolution 1441.

Our present situation is a culmination of several difficult years of the world working to disarm Iraq and free the Iraqi people of a hostile military dictator. Since the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991, the United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iraq in an effort to disarm the nation of weapons of mass destruction. To achieve this objective, UN weapons inspectors were sent to Iraq to monitor the demolition of all Iraqi weapons. In 1998 Iraqi authorities refused to provide any further co-operation with UN inspectors which led to their eventual evacuation from the region.

This turning point has led to consistent non-compliance with the demands of the world through the United Nations over the years. All the while we have begrudgingly made do with trade sanctions and the hope that the situation would not escalate. By the member for Yukon's comments, I think it is still the position of the Liberal government that we are hoping that something will happen.

However, in light of recent events, specifically the horrific events of September 11, we can no longer live with the continuous threat of possible attacks from any terrorist group or threatening nation. Although Canada, along with the United States, has worked to improve our collective national security, we must complement this effort by neutralizing any global terrorist threats.

Many countries around the world have had a longstanding confrontation with Iraq. Saddam Hussein has been unapologetic for his disdain of civilized nations, even his own people. Since the removal of UN weapons inspectors in 1998, it has been widely suspected that the Iraqi government was restoring its weapons programs in order to replenish its supply of weapons of mass destruction. The new evidence brought forward by the U.S. secretary of state has confirmed our suspicions. These covert activities simply are not acceptable and must stop.

On November 8, 2002 the United Nations Security Council made one last attempt to provide Iraq's leadership with one more opportunity to peacefully resolve this situation. In passing resolution 1441, the UN sent a very clear message to Saddam Hussein with five primary demands: one, declare all of Iraq's activities related to the development of chemical, biological and nuclear and ballistic missiles; two, provide full and unhindered access to all facilities suspected of producing weapons or biological agents and related documents or records for UN weapons inspectors; three, provide a list of all personnel associated with weapons programs; four, allow private interviews by inspectors without the presence of Iraqi officials; and five, allow unrestricted aircraft reconnaissance by the UN.

To date, Iraq has failed to fully comply with all of these demands. We know this. Although the United Nations chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has yet to make his final report on the matter, we already know from his interim report to the Security Council that Iraq's co-operation up to now has been unsatisfactory.

If there is one thing history can teach us about Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, it is that we cannot expect him to follow UN demands to immediately disarm if we do not back them up with severe consequences for non-compliance.

The most recent UN resolution and the many before it since the gulf war state quite clearly that Iraq must disarm or face consequences. These consequences must be backed up with action from UN member countries. It is only with this threat of force we can ever hope to have Iraq peacefully disarm. Our current situation is a true test of the United Nations and everything that it has come to represent.

Before the United Nations was created, a similar organization, the League of Nations, existed to fulfill a similar role of facilitating international co-operation. As some may recall, at the urging of Britain and the United States, the league was created at the end of World War I, the so-called war to end all wars, as a means of preventing another world conflict. A league covenant was agreed to by member countries outlining the principles of collective security through the use of arbitration in international disputes, reductions of armaments and open diplomacy.

Throughout the 1920s the league was effective in settling minor international disputes. However, it never received any serious challenges to its authority until the 1930s.

The League of Nations could no longer fulfill its mandate of preventing world aggression because it could not back up agreements with action for non-compliance. The evidence of this was the Japanese expansion into Manchuria and China, Italy's conquest of Ethiopia and Hitler's outright repudiation of the Versailles treaty.

In the days leading up to World War II, the prime ministers of France and Britain negotiated the Munich Pact in 1938 in an effort to appease the dictators Hitler and Mussolini. In exchange for no further territorial demands, Germany was allowed to reoccupy the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. After the negotiations, British Prime Minister Chamberlain returned to London and declared the now infamous “peace in our time”. Shortly thereafter we learned this was not the case.

We must remember these lessons we have learned throughout history when dealing with Iraq. Many countries around the world have worked together to give more credence to the consequences for defying the UN resolutions. In spite of this the Liberal government has remained steadfast in its position of having no position on Iraq, nor has it shown any willingness to work with our allies. This is truly sad.

Canada should be continuing its tradition of peace building by working to resolve the situation with our allies, the United States, Britain, Australia, Spain and many more. Yet the Prime Minister is continuing with his usual trait of doing nothing to avoid offending anyone. The unfortunate casualty of his actions is true national leadership for Canadians.

Deciding on matters as serious as a potential war is not easy. People do not like war. People do not want war. However, people recognize that sometimes it is necessary to maintain global security.

The Iraqi government knows this. In the past few months there has been quite a bit of posturing in the media from Saddam Hussein in an attempt to win over public opinion.

This week in fact the Iraqi leader granted his first sit down interview in more than a decade. Never before have we seen this from a hostile rogue nation so clearly trying to deceive the world.

Colin Powell's presentation yesterday provides irrefutable evidence that Iraq has deliberately deceived and hampered weapons inspections and that Iraq has no intention of disarming.

From eyewitness accounts to satellite imagery, the chilling and sometimes graphic evidence presented constitutes a material breach of UN Security Council resolution 1441. However, we must wait for the final report from the chief UN weapons inspector on February 14 before this is officially confirmed.

Either way, Canada should resolve to work with our allies to ensure that Saddam Hussein disarms peacefully, or failing that, initiate the serious consequences as indicated in resolution 1441.

Let me be very clear about the motion we are debating because of some comments earlier. We are not debating the merits of military action against Iraq, even though I have touched on some of the arguments that are out there. Our supply day motion is about providing the House of Commons with the opportunity to have a vote on the matter.

At the end of the day we will be voting on whether Canadians should be given the opportunity to be heard by allowing their elected representatives to individually express their support or their opposition on behalf of their constituents.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member watched the President of the United States in January 2002 give a speech. In that speech he used the phrase “axis of evil” and he described Iraq, Iran and North Korea as being the axis of evil.

After he gets done with Iraq, will he support similar action against Iran and North Korea?

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

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost we have to deal with the immediate threat before us.

It seems to me that the Liberal government has been using this as a smokescreen. It is saying that we cannot go after one despot, no matter how much of a threat he poses to global peace and security and no matter how much evidence there is. It does not make sense because perhaps North Korea, with its nuclear capability, is more of a threat. Maybe we should do something about it.

There is no resolution currently before the UN about North Korea. There is no resolution about China or Taiwan or other countries that the parliamentary secretary might want to mention. We are dealing with Iraq. We are dealing with our support of the United Nations.

I outlined in my speech one of the biggest problems with doing nothing. History taught us with the League of Nations that if countries were not prepared to stand up and be counted then the United Nations would fall apart.

The Liberal government, by its dithering and failing to stand with our allies, Britain, Australia, Spain and the United States, and by failing to make that clear is doing more to destroy the credibility of the United Nations that anything else.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's message. I am really glad he brought September 11 back into the picture. We seem to forget that from time to time.

I would love to have time to speak to this issue but there will not be time for me. I have a lot of concern about war. I do not want war. Nobody wants war. Nobody in my riding wants war.

I have a son who is in Kuwait city at this moment. He is stationed there with the military of the United States, and I am extremely proud that George Bush and Colin Powell are his commanding officers. That makes me feel a lot more comfortable than some of the other things I hear.

We cannot negotiate with Saddam. This has been mentioned a hundred times. We cannot negotiate with a man who has been known to be a murderous tyrant on a number of occasions. We know what kind of a human being he is.

One thing really bothers me. I have heard what the members of the New Democratic Party have said in the House. Just the other night in the take note debate when I tried to intervene, they shouted that there was no difference between George Bush and Saddam Hussein. The anti-American sentiment I have heard from across the way is far too ridiculous. I am proud to hear that the deputy leader of the Liberals has asked them to cool down. I happen to think the Americans make pretty good neighbours. I am not sure who else I would want for a neighbour and I am not sure who the NDP would want for a neighbour other than who we have.

That kind of condemnation of the President of the United States is absolutely outrageous and our country should not even venture into that. We need to stand together with our allies and we need to get a message to murderous people like Saddam Hussein that this has to come to an end.

What does the member say to people in the House who make those kinds of remarks?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Wild Rose has a hugely personal stake in this. As a parent, I cannot imagine the anguish and emotion he is dealing with having his son stationed over there and knowing he may be going to war at any time.

The message I would give to members like that is a lesson that we have learned through history: united we stand, divided we fall.

September 11 was an attack on all of us. Canadians died there. Canadian families are suffering because of that terrorist action. We cannot allow that to happen again.