House of Commons Hansard #74 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was international.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

I am being heckled here, Mr. Speaker. I guess they do not really want to hear the truth.

The leader of the CCF at the time, who was a pacifist on principle, voted against the declaration of war on Germany in 1939, but the rest of the CCF caucus at the time voted for it. I think that should be put on the record. The CCF also supported the government in Korea, and in fact this caucus supported initially the actions in Kosovo. So to characterize the NDP position as being against the use of force in any circumstance is quite wrong.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Stephen Harper Canadian Alliance Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will not debate every historical point. I will just point out that the NDP's tradition of pacifism has a tendency to go much farther than that. The NDP missed Saddam Hussein in 1991, just as it is missing him today. We all remember that. For much of the cold war, that party missed or downplayed the evil represented by the Soviet empire. As the member concedes, the NDP leader of the day did miss the threat posed by Adolf Hitler. I would concede the CCF voted for the war at the very end. I do not know what it did during the 1930s, but I do remember well my father and grandfather and relatives telling me how during the 1930s people of that persuasion ignored the evils of Adolf Hitler and told them that Adolf Hitler was just helping the German working man and this kind of thing.

And it is even today. The NDP has a history of this. At these kinds of moments, it not only has a history of being on the wrong side of the issue, but as it has done in the House today, it targets all its criticisms at the good guys and all its criticisms at what they may do. I urge the NDP to reconsider, to consider how serious the threat of Saddam Hussein is for the world and for Iraq and to stand by the removal of that regime.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could just pick up on where the leader of the official opposition left off when he said that the NDP likes to target the good guy.

We are critical of the good guys because we do share their values and we want them to act according to the values that we share. We want the good guys to keep on being the good guys. We do not want them to act like the bad guys. That is called the prophetic perspective, by which many people over the centuries have been more critical of the people who share their values when those values are about to be departed from than they are in an active way of those who do not share their values in the first place.

I do not expect Saddam Hussein to be a good guy. I already know that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. What we are disagreeing with here is how we deal with the bad guys and whether we deal with them in the way that the United States has proposed to do in this instance, through the instigation of a pre-emptive war that sets brand new precedence with respect to how international affairs are to be conducted. That is the debate here.

This is not a question of who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. We know who the bad guy is. The bad guy is Saddam Hussein. The question is how do we deal with that in a way that ensures the long term security and safety of the planet. That is the debate.

I make no apologies for the fact that the NDP and the CCF before it, and many others, have been willing to take whatever heat comes from the likes of the Leader of the Opposition by willing to be critical of our own side. It seems to me that we do not check our values in at the door whenever a war starts or whenever there is a conflict. We do not check our brains in or our values in. We keep those active and we are willing to be prophetically critical of our own side when we think it is doing something wrong. That, it seems to me, is the mark of true statesmanship and good politics, and that is what we are about here today.

I want to thank the Bloc for bringing forward the motion, but again express my regret that we do not have a government so confident in its own position that it would not come into the House, like Tony Blair did, albeit with a different position, put down a motion and have a debate. I have yet to see the Prime Minister deliver a speech of any length or substance with all his members around him supporting him in the way that other prime ministers have. Why can we not have that kind of debate in the House? Why does it have to be an opposition party that brings forward a debate in the course of these opposition day opportunities? Why could the government not have done that? It is an insult to Parliament. It betrays a lack of conviction on the part of the government with respect to its own position that it is unwilling to do this. It certainly does not do anything for the respect that Canadians have for Parliament to have the absence of that kind of occasion persist, even in the face of the circumstances that we now have before us.

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

It seems to me that we could have had a motion but I do not want to dwell forever on the procedural end of it, although I find the Bloc motion to be a bit odd in the sense that it calls on the government to do something which I think the government has already done. In that sense, I think it could have been better worded to have said that it affirms the government's decision to not participate in the war on Iraq. In any event, it is substantively the same and I certainly hope that the government intends to support the motion.

On a number of other occasions, when this kind of issue has been before the Canadian people, there have been votes in the House of Commons. I recall the gulf war, what might come to be called the first gulf war, when on three different occasions we had three different motions before the House, put forward by the Conservative government, on which we had debate and a vote. It seems to me that is the kind of thing that should have been emulated. The Prime Minister has emulated almost everything else that Brian Mulroney did. The one good thing that he did while he was here, the Prime Minister takes a pass on. It is unfortunate.

What we see here is the persistent ambiguity in the Prime Minister's position with respect to the possibility of a war in Iraq. I sometimes felt that the goal of the Liberal government was not so much to prevent a war on Iraq, but to make sure that the war on Iraq had the sanction of the United Nations.

The real failure, as the Liberals experience failure in this case, is not the failure to prevent a war but the failure to prevent a war not sanctioned by the UN.

When push came to shove, the Prime Minister had to choose, and I think he made the right decision, but it seems to me that the goals and aspirations characteristic of the government's behaviour leading up to that certainly were not the goals and aspirations that we shared on this side, because we saw the goal as not wanting to have a war in the first place.

This ambiguity persists. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are not willing to say that this war, by many authoritative accounts, is illegal. Why is the Prime Minister not willing to say that or to comment on whether he thinks it is illegal or not? Perhaps he thinks it is a legal war and there are other reasons why Canada should not be participating. Perhaps he thinks it is an illegal war and that is the reason Canada is not participating.

We have not had any of that kind of explanation from the government. It seems to me that Parliament and the Canadian people are owed that kind of explanation as to what is the reasoning behind the government's position.

We have more of this kind of ambiguity in the way that the Prime Minister has refused to be clear about how he intends to prevent the undermining of his own position. When I say the undermining of his own position I am speaking of the possibility that Canadian Forces now in the gulf region under the auspices of Operation Apollo may well be drawn into the war on Iraq.

Yesterday, for instance, I raised the issue of the Minister of National Defence being reported to have said that Canadian ships in the gulf might well escort American ships heading toward the theatre of war. I did not get a straight answer on that. Are Canadian ships operating in Operation Apollo forbidden from escorting ships into the theatre of war? If they are not, then it seems to me that this could very well be an inconsistency on the part of the government.

There is of course the very real, and I think already established inconsistency, of leaving Canadian officers, who are on exchange with American units, leaving them participating in those units, particularly when those units might be participating in the war on Iraq. Is the government not concerned about the integrity of its own position?

We are not asking the government to uphold the NDP position. We are asking the government to uphold its own position, that Canadian troops should not be part of the war on Iraq.

We are concerned that the Prime Minister, and it would not be the first time that the Prime Minister has tried to do this, is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to have the politics of not participating in the war on Iraq, and we applaud that decision, but at the same time we feel that the Prime Minister and Canada should not get away with undermining its own position by permitting circumstances that would have Canadian Forces in the gulf participating in the war on Iraq indirectly, either through surveillance aircraft that are providing information to the fifth fleet that is to be used in the war on Iraq, or our ships escorting American ships to the war on Iraq, or in the various other ways that we might become involved. We are very concerned about that as I know are the Bloc Quebecois, and others may be as well.

We ask the Prime Minister in this instance to be more clear and express to President Bush a broader criticism of the war than just non-participation. All the Prime Minister has offered so far is Canadian non-participation. We think that more is required of the Prime Minister in this case. Certainly what is required of the Prime Minister is that Canadian Forces not undermine what has been a good political decision in the best sense of the word “political”, not just in the partisan, pejorative or seeking political advantage sense of the word political, but a good political decision not be undermined by Canada surreptitiously or inadvertently participating in the war on Iraq.

We are now in the irony that Canada actually has more military forces in the gulf that are open to this kind of participation, although we hope not, in the war in Iraq than most of the other countries that have been listed as supporters of the war in Iraq. This is a situation that poses great danger for the integrity of the government's position and I urge the government to act on it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was quite taken by the comments by the member for Winnipeg--Transcona. I think most of us in the House respect his opinions.

The analysis in his dissertation about Canada's commitment or lack of commitment to this war is based on the premise of the difference between a legal and an illegal war. I was kind of captivated by that thought process.

I wonder if the member could explain to me under what terms and conditions he feels that war is legal. By definition, if he believes the war is illegal there must be, in his definition, some thought process that a war is legal.

What kind of process says that a war is legal? At what time is it legal for a nation to invade, strike, maim people or kill people?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a wide body of opinion that would contend that this particular war is illegal, that it does not meet any of the traditional tests of what constitutes a legal war.

Iraq is not in a position to attack the United States or to attack the United Kingdom. There is no imminent threat from Iraq. Even if there was, there has always been a reservation against pre-emptive attacks.

This is a whole new doctrine that President Bush is introducing into the geopolitical world order; the idea of pre-emptive war. Even people like Henry Kissinger have expressed concerns about the precedent setting nature of what President Bush has embarked upon. He may embark upon it out of a heightened sensitivity about the security of the American people in the post-September 11 context. He may embark upon it for all the best reasons in his own mind but we should not be complacent about the dangers that this particular initiative on the part of the president poses for the security of the world in the long run if other countries take it upon themselves to act according to the same principles that the president has set out as acceptable for the United States to act on.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, in the 10 years that I have been here this particular member is one for whom I have had a great deal of respect. The member has impressed me a great deal with his wisdom in parliamentary procedures and his ability to guide many of us who were new here at the time in a lot of things that we did. The member and I have even agreed I am sure on a few issues, although basically not on a lot.

Therefore, I have to say to the member that I was absolutely shocked when I read his comments during the leadership of the NDP. He said:

I find it strange... that a pro-life politician like George Bush is planning every minute of his life to kill as many Iraqi children as he can in the name of oil or whatever it is that's really on the agenda.

I was absolutely shocked when I read that the statement came from this particular member.

George Bush is the commander-in-chief of the United States military. The soldiers that are in the military reflect their commander-in-chief. My son is in the military of the United States. He is on the front lines this day as we speak. He is not there to kill children for the sake of oil or anything. He is reflecting the will of society at large, that in the long run this will bring a great deal of protection in the future for our children, my grandchildren, his kids and many others.

I would like to hear this member take back those words of absolute ridiculousness.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I understand and appreciate the intensity of the emotion that the hon. member must feel if he has a son in the situation that he describes. I am sure that all members here pray for the safety and security of the hon. member's son in the armed forces, just as we do for everyone who may be affected by this war.

With respect to what I said during the leadership race, I have had many opportunities to clarify what I had to say, but I do not apologize, and never did, for the main point I was trying to make, which was that I find this strange. I do not think that President Bush spends every minute of his life, or whatever it was I said, trying to plan how to kill Iraqi children. The point I was trying to make was that I find there to be an inconsistency, and I maintain this, between a great many politicians, not all, because there are pro-life politicians who do not have a predisposition toward war, but there are many pro-life politicians who do have a predisposition toward war as a means of solving problems.

War kills children. That is the link between that predisposition to war and the way in which war kills children. I left out the second link and I should not have, because I do not really believe that President Bush lies awake nights thinking about how to kill Iraqi children. I think he spent a lot of time planning a war on Iraq and that war on Iraq may indeed have the effect of killing a lot of children. That is one of the reasons why we are against it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, on this very sombre occasion of the commencement of U.S. bombing in Iraq, our first thoughts are very much with the Iraqi citizens, with the men, women and, as my colleague from Winnepeg--Transcona has expressed, especially the children, whose already beleaguered lives have just taken a sharp turn for the worse.

We must also acknowledge that there are many other people in harm's way. Regardless of whatever partisan divisions may exist among members of Parliament, it is absolutely appropriate that we acknowledge that there are members who have family, sons and daughters, in harm's way, in particular the foreign affairs minister, the member for Wild Rose who has just spoken, and the former prime minister of the country, Pierre Trudeau, whose sons are now, as a result of the events that have unfolded in the last 24 hours, very much in harm's way in an absolutely tragic war.

What is so heartbreakingly tragic about this war that is now underway is that it was preventable. The fact is that UN weapons inspectors have confirmed again and again that peaceful disarmament was happening, not at as accelerated a pace as we would have liked, not as proactively as we would have wished, but it was happening. For the U.S. in particular to take the position that it would slam the door on peace to open the way to war when peaceful disarmament was happening is not only a tragedy but a disgrace that does damage to the reputation of the U.S. and the U.K. It does damage to 60 years of building the international architecture of the United Nations, thumbs its nose at international law and creates immense instability in the Middle East that will have consequences for a long time to come.

I congratulate the leader of the Bloc Quebecois for bringing forward this motion. Some would argue that it is not acceptable to bring this kind of motion before the House, since the government has already stated that Canada will not participate in the military intervention initiated by the United States in Iraq.

It is my view and very much the view of my party that it is appropriate on this day for us not only to debate this excruciatingly difficult issue but to have a vote on this issue so that each and every member of the House will be accountable for where they stood when the decision was taken.

I want to reinforce the point made by my colleague from Winnipeg--Transcona that it is disappointing that the federal government has not come forward and put its own motion before the House for a full debate, sponsored by the government, on which we would be voting today. Nevertheless, thankfully we are addressing the issue in the House and we feel that it is a credit to the Bloc Québécois that it has brought forward this issue.

No aware Canadian can be unmindful of the intense pressure that was brought to bear on the government to fall into line with the U.S. led war in Iraq. I think we have to be prepared to acknowledge that. One of the truly disgusting things about what has gone on in and around the United Nations in recent weeks has been the bullying, the virtual bribing, which would be found illegal in most contexts in this world, and the threatening by the U.S.A. in particular to bring to heel the non-permanent members of the Security Council and then the countries that now make up the so-called coalition of the willing. It is very apt that someone suggested that of those 30 countries many among them can be thought of not so much as being a part of a coalition of the willing but as a coalition of the coerced. It is no secret to anybody that this is in fact how they ended up in that so-called coalition.

It is in the spirit of the debate we are having today that we acknowledge that our government has stood up to considerable pressure from the U.S., with the knowledge that we are vulnerable to economic retaliation from our neighbours to the south. But we have stood on an important point of principle. I feel proud today to wear my maple leaf and to say that this Canadian government stood with the values of Canadians that have been expressed by tens of thousands of participants in rallies across this country.

If there were ever a clear example of where a government has been moved to take a stand and to have the spike put into their spine to stand on principle, it is the example of the mobilization of Canadians across this country asking the government to stand firm for peace and resist the pressures to enter a war.

To those who advocate that somehow it is leaving our military personnel in the lurch for us not to be enthusiastic about entering this war, I say that they absolutely misunderstand the depth of the dedication of our men and women in the Canadian military to the very first principle of the UN charter, which is to prevent future generations and today's civilians around the world from undergoing the scourge of war.

I ask those Alliance members who are sabre-rattling from that corner what they would say today to the Iraqi-Canadian couple who appeared at the rally in my city of Halifax to take a stand for peace. When asked what their family members in Baghdad were going to do in the face of the oncoming war, that couple said that after a great deal of consultation among themselves and with their family, including family here in Canada, their family members decided to stay together in Baghdad and face death together. What would those members of the Alliance say to that family, which is suffering the most horrifying threat of their family being wiped out in Baghdad by bombs being dropped in the name of liberating the Iraqi people?

I just want to finish by saying that for me it was particularly heartening on Saturday when our new leader, Jack Layton, was in Halifax participating with the members for Dartmouth and Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore in inviting people to sign the petition to stand against the war. We came across a member of the armed forces. What that member said to us was, “I do not really feel free to sign the petition because I am in the military, but I want to thank you for taking the lead in Parliament and across this country, working with peace loving Canadians in every corner of Canada, to push the Canadian government to stay out of this war. I will do what I am called upon to do as a member of the Canadian armed forces, but I do not feel that I can sign on. I want you to know that I and many of my colleagues appreciate that you understand what the nature of our commitment is, and that is to prevent war when it can be prevented”.

This is an example of a war that could and should have been prevented.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, as I stand here today I share probably as much pain as any of the other members here, I believe, over the thought that there are innocent people in our world who are being killed. That is very unfortunate. In a way we are debating here that old philosophical question that we are asked at university. There are five people in a boat. One has to be pushed over. Which one goes, the baby, the mother, the old grandmother or the wretched old man who is in the back? Which one is taken? Then there is debate on what the value of human life is and how one makes these choices. I think the dilemma we face is in evaluating whether the loss of life in a short mission to stop this very evil person will result in fewer lives lost than if we were to allow him to continue with the kinds of things he has been doing for many years.

I think, for example, of our lack of involvement in Rwanda. My own son and his wife were in Rwanda as relief agents providing shelter and homes for 400 children whose parents were needlessly killed in the conflict in Rwanda while the rest of the world sat by and let it happen. We should have moved in and stopped it to prevent all of those innocent folks from being killed, but we did not. Perhaps this time we are saying that this is a tyrant who must be stopped and, as unsavoury as it is, we will stand between him and his victims.

Unfortunately, in every war there are innocent victims. Members of my own family were innocent victims. How many of us in this place have fathers, uncles and grandfathers who lie in graves in a foreign land because they were fighting not for Canada's immediate interests but for peace, democracy and lack of tyranny, for stopping people like Hitler and others? That is why we die. We do not do it only for what is immediately good for Canada. I share that as a dilemma. I know that people here have come to a different conclusion. When attacked I will do everything I can to stop it, but if that person is attacking others I believe I have an obligation to stand in between.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I know I have a short time to respond to the hon. member but I want to make three quick points.

First, he has reminded me again of how absolutely repugnant it is for his party to keep portraying the notion that somehow the New Democratic Party, or our forerunner the CCF, failed to stand up against Hitler, failed to support the war against Hitler. I must say that I take great personal offence to that because my mother spent her years during the war as a single parent raising two babies while my father was serving in the armed forces. In fact, he proudly left his job with the CCF here in Ottawa on the Hill and went into the air force to serve proudly, and subsequently after the war ran in uniform for the CCF, with not a hesitation about having been so proactive in standing against Hitler. I take personal offence and so do a lot of other people at the misrepresentation that has wilfully been put forward again and again over the recent weeks.

Second, we are not debating some philosophical point. I cannot believe that the member said that this is a debate about some philosophical point. We are debating something that has to do with life and death, the potential death of millions of people. Let us be very clear. We are not only talking about a war that is illegal and immoral, but most importantly, we are talking about a war that was preventable. That is the tragedy of what is being permitted to happen in the name of disarming Saddam Hussein.

Third, of course, Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. Of course, these weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the people of Iraq, but so are weapons of mass destruction in the hands of many other nations. They are a threat to the future of the human family and to the future of the planet. We must begin dealing with that. The international multilateral architecture that has been built is the very multilateral institution against whom there has been a death blow dealt by the U.S. and the U.K. as a result of the decision to launch this preventable war.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have consulted with all the parties and I think if you were to seek it you would get unanimous consent to allow the Progressive Conservative Party to split its 20 minute time allocation, with 15 minutes to the member for Calgary Centre and 5 minutes to the member for Cumberland--Colchester.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it agreed?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I rise to address the only issue all parliamentarians wish to avoid during their political career.

Last night, the first bombs were dropped on Iraq. Diplomacy has failed, and we are now caught in a war that the whole world wanted to avoid. I regret the military invasion now under way. I regret that the United Nations was unable to bridge the gap.

But now we are before a fait accompli, and Canada must turn to the future.

Whenever a major international issue arises we must ask, what are Canada's interests here and how are they best served?

The conduct of the Canadian government on Iraq has severely damaged three of our most important interests. The most evident damage is that the government has gone out of its way to offend the foreign country on which the lives of our citizens most depend.

It is not wrong to disagree with the United States.

As foreign minister, I disagreed with them directly and openly on “star wars”, on Nicaragua, on South Africa, on our sovereignty in our north, on human rights, and other issues.

What is wrong is to deliberately insult the United States in the process, both by the intemperate statement of ministers and senior officials and by the Prime Minister's simple lack of courage in not calling the president himself to advise that Canada, in the Prime Minister's signature phrase, “would not participate” in dealing with a regime we know is deadly.

That was simply bad manners. One consequence is that ordinary Canadians will pay a high price for a long time on softwood, on wheat, and on other economic issues. They will pay a high price in discrimination, harassment, and suspicion along our most important border.

The government's carelessness has harmed two other fundamental Canadian interests. We were once known as a country that acted on principle, not just on polls or domestic popularity.

War is always inhuman. The real issue with this war is whether it is legitimate in international law. As the member for Winnipeg--Transcona and others indicated, serious scholars disagree on that issue.

In the absence of formal legal opinions from Canada's government--I asked but it would not provide them--I believe that existing Security Council resolutions give the legitimacy of the United Nations to this intervention. I accept the considered view of the government of the United Kingdom that the combination of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 provide the authority required. However, for the Government of Canada the question of principle does not matter.

The foreign minister says, and repeats, that for moral, principled Canada “it is not a matter of determining whether military action is legitimate or otherwise”. What if we had said that about Tiananmen Square or about South Africa, or about human rights? Canada was once a country that set the highest standard of respecting international law, but the government does not care whether the action is legal or illegal. We have blown away one of Canada's most important and distinctive credentials.

Finally, in two world wars, and in Korea, and from Lester Pearson forward in diplomacy, Canada was a country which others could count on for international leadership. When Suez devastated the existing international order, Canada led in the creation of peacekeeping. When relations between the United States and Europe were strained and divided, Canada led in the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We led in the Rio conference on the environment. We led in official development assistance. We led on South Africa. We took our place at the Organization of American States. We led in trade negotiations. We led in the gulf. That leadership gave us a status and an influence well beyond our power. However, the government does not lead and Canada pays the price.

Our military spending is a dangerous joke. Our foreign aid has been cut by the government to nearly the lowest levels in the developed world. We have become, on international issues, the invisible country.

The Prime Minister chose his words quite carefully in his statement Monday. He said, “Canada will not participate”. His Canada does not participate. It sits on the sidelines without even a view as to whether a major intervention is legal or not. When it comes to pulling together what war has torn apart, the Prime Minister wants to wait for the bombs to drop. He wants to wait for more Iraqis to be killed before he takes any action on the reconstruction of Iraq.

We know that as a result of the tensions of the last two months, NATO is torn and the next meeting of the G-8 is in doubt. The United Nations and the Security Council are divided. The coalition against terrorism has been shaken. All of those are essential to Canada. Yet Canada is doing nothing to repair the damage. Canada, under the government, “will not participate”. Lester Pearson would hang his head in shame.

I believe the United States and Britain should have given the UN inspectors more time. I believe the Prime Minister of Canada should have intervened directly with the presidents of France and the United States as former Prime Minister Mulroney did so effectively in the gulf war. I believe the reconstruction of Iraq is too important to leave to a Pentagon that wants to experiment with transplanting American values throughout the Middle East.

Most urgently, I believe Canada has a unique opportunity to shape the outcome of the drama by taking the lead right now to ensure the United Nations and not any single country has primary responsibility for the sensitive work of reconstruction. Reconstruction is more than building roads and dams. It involves bringing together different people and respecting those differences. It involves having the reputation of someone who can be trusted to respect differences.

There is only one organization now mounting to deal with reconstruction and it is the Pentagon of the United States. That is not adequate. The United Nations must be given the power to do that. It does not have that power now. Canada should be acting now to ensure that there is a consensus in the United Nations to allow a Security Council resolution that would establish the United Nations as the instrument of reconstruction in Iraq and wherever else devastation occurs.

Let us get on with that future. Let us stop, if I may speak to the motion of the Bloc, pretending that this conflict was in the motion's words “initiated by the United States”.

War is regrettable, but the United States did not initiate these actions.

One man is responsible for today's events. One man has defied the international community for over a decade. One man carries the burden of the suffering of his nation. That is Saddam Hussein.

That is where I believe my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois went terribly wrong. Their motion points the finger at the wrong man and lays the blame squarely at the wrong doorstep. Their motion would tie Canada's hands should a cornered Saddam Hussein do the unthinkable.

Let us stop pretending that Saddam Hussein is a victim.

Remember the Kurds he killed. Remember his war with Iran. Remember his invasion of Kuwait. Remember his slaughter of his own people. Remember his stark and steady defiance of the resolutions of the United Nations. Let us remember that blame is a game for the sidelines. Historically on international issues Canadians made hard judgments so we could act in the arena where history is decided.

The government's simple lack of courage and refusal to take hard decisions has meant we have had very little influence on the war. Let us now not squander our opportunity to help shape the reconstruction and the peace.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, coming from a member for whom I have the greatest respect, I would like to suggest to him that talking about lack of courage on the part of the government in circumstances that were extremely delicate and difficult for Canada is a total exaggeration.

To speak of Canada not taking part in the coalition on terrorism when we have sent additional troops to Afghanistan to help effectively in this war is another exaggeration. To say that we did not stand on principle when at the United Nations we acted so forcibly to find a bridge between the two extremes there and to say that the government did not stand on principle when for the first time, in the legacy of Pearson and Trudeau, we stood up against the United States in a difficult context, I think is totally exaggerated.

I think that Canada, and I ask the member if he would agree with me, by stating that we reinforce the presence and the sanction of the United Nations, has spoken eloquently by agreeing that only a multilateral decision would be sanctioned.

The Secretary General of the United Nations has spoken clearly. He has not gone so far as to say the war is illegal, but that it is the saddest day for the United Nations.

The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that Canada will take an active part in reconstruction. Does the member not agree that his rhetoric has been far too one sided, biased and not objective enough?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. I believe there are certain obligations in international affairs and, when one has to take a tough decision affecting another country, one has to have the courage to go and tell it.

When we took the tough decision regarding the United States not to accept the strategic defence initiative, we did not have a deputy minister phone the ambassador. We talked to the president directly. I talked to the secretary of state directly. That is what courage is about. That is not what happened in this case.

The hon. member, who pays very close attention to these matters, misunderstood what I was saying about the coalition of terror, and that was probably my fault. What I was saying was that the actions that have been taken, without assigning blame for who took them, has broken the consensus in the coalition of terror and we need to restore it. Canada has the unique role, I believe, of restoring the sense of that coalition as it does in NATO and elsewhere. That at least is what I intended to say.

The major point I want to make has to do with whether or not the action that has been taken by the United Kingdom, the United States and by others is an action that is within the authority of the United Nations. I believe it is.

I asked the Government of Canada to publish its own legal opinions, which it did not. I have noted that the foreign minister has said that the question of legitimacy does not matter. I think the question of legitimacy matters profoundly. I think this is an issue, and others can disagree, but I believe, as the British government and as others do, that this action is in fact consistent with a combination of resolutions that were taken by the United Nations and it is, therefore, a legitimate action under the United Nations.

Consequently, the Prime Minister is wrong to say that he alone is defending the United Nations. I think in fact he is stepping aside from an action that is legitimate under the United Nations.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Stockwell Day Canadian Alliance Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Speaker, I find the remarks of the last presenter to be somewhat regrettable in terms of an undertone that he will have to clarify. He has questioned the motives of the United States and of the President of the United States. There is a tradition among parliamentarians, albeit that it is now informal since it transfers across boundaries, that one accepts one's word until one is proven different.

The member for Calgary Centre very clearly questioned the motives, saying that it was not in the best interest of the people of Iraq in terms of reconstruction. That has to be clarified. It is unacceptable for him to be joining the pack of Liberals who continue this undermining on a personal basis. That has to be clarified.

With all the bluster around the member's comments, he has neglected to really zero in on the fact that his position is basically the same as the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister at least had the jam to stand up and say it and state it, although I totally disagree with his position. This member is putting bluster all around it and saying that the Prime Minister is wrong when in fact the member and the Tory caucus voted that we would abandon our historical allies and that we would not take part in disarming Saddam Hussein unless we had the approval of the Security Council. He is trying to get around that by saying that we should find a legal opinion. As he knows, in law there at least two opinions on every matter. There is a preponderance of opinion saying that this is legal. It is simply a matter that the member will not decide to choose that opinion.

Therefore, will the member please clarify how he differs from the Prime Minister, because he has also voted to abandon our historical allies subjecting our sovereignty--

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. I want to give other members an opportunity also. The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will not argue legal opinions with the hon. member. He has far more experience in that regard than I do.

He raised two questions. My position has always been that I would support action within the context of the United Nations. I made very clear in my remarks today that, on the question of the interpretation of the resolutions of the United Nations in 1990 and again resolution 1441, I believe the action that has been taken by the United States, by the United Kingdom and by others is legitimate under the United Nations. I would support the legitimacy of that action.

With respect to the question of reconstruction, this is a very important issue. It is important on two fronts. First, there is a question as to whether or not we should leave the pooling together of what has been torn apart to the superpower that was principally responsible for the tearing apart. I think that superpowers have unusual capacities but reconciliation is not one of them. We need to have an instrument that can carry out reconciliation. I would like to see that done by the United Nations.

With respect to motives, I am concerned about some of the thinking that exists in the pentagon with respect to the re-creation of society along American values in the Middle East. I believe that is a very risky undertaking and certainly I would not want Canada to sign on blindly to that sort of notion.

However, in order for there to be an alternative to the pentagon as the instrument of reconstruction, then some respected nation has to start the process right now to put the United Nations in a position to authorize reconstruction under United Nations auspices. It does not have that power now. Nobody is seeking to do it. It is an ideal role for Canada and we should be on it right now.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative Party a great deal and on many occasions I have agreed with him, particularly on matters of international relations and foreign policy. In fact, on many occasions it is probably true that he has been more in agreement with the New Democratic Party than he has been with many of his own colleagues on matters of foreign affairs.

There were two things that I was utterly dismayed to hear said this morning by the former prime minister and former foreign affairs minister who served very nobly in the government. The first thing he said was that he was prepared to take the view of the U.K. with respect to the question of the legality of this war as his authority or as his bible for declaring that this war is a legal war.

There is nothing more related to the sovereignty of one's nation than making a decision to go to war. Has the member consulted, for example, the United Nations Association in Canada and the World Federalists of Canada? Did he consult the committee of 78, a committee of distinguished international affairs experts, diplomats and former personnel involved in senior positions, and capably chaired by Canada's former ambassador for disarmament, to seek an opinion before he, in my view, uncritically embraced the self-serving opinion of the U.K. government to declare this to be a legal and moral war?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question very specifically, I did not consult them but I am certainly aware of the diversity of opinions on the question of the interpretation of the resolution.

I am persuaded by the U.K. interpretation, which begins with resolution 678 passed in 1990 that authorized all necessary means, which is the euphemism in the United Nations for force. It was then suspended by resolution 687. Resolution 687 required certain conditions to be met and those conditions have not been met. Therefore Saddam Hussein is clearly in breach of that.

This brings us back to resolution 678 which authorizes the use of force and which resolution was referred to specifically in resolution 1441.

Next to the member for Okanagan--Coquihalla, I am the most prominent non-lawyer in the House of Commons and I do not pretend to argue the legality myself. There are a variety of views and one has to come to judgments about them. I believe that the argument made by the British and by others is a compelling argument that brings legitimacy to these actions.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to a subject to which I wish we never had to speak. Last night I watched the short one liner by the spokesperson for the President of the United States who came on television to say that the disarmament of Iraq had begun. We are in it. It is underway. We have started.

I will move to the comments made by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who said that the government has been involved with this and it has tried really hard to build a bridge. That is true. It did try to build a bridge, but it was at the very end.

The problem is that the government was invisible for the first six months of this operation. We should have been involved from the very beginning, trying to influence some of these decisions and directions where other parties went that are now active in this war.

If we turned on the television we could see the position of Belgium, Portugal and Spain, but we never saw the position of Canada unless it was changing one direction or the other night by night. The problem is Canada was invisible.

However now we have another opportunity and we should not be invisible. We should be very active in helping the countries that will be involved in the restructuring to develop a plan to reconstruct the country and provide aid to the people who will starve. As one member of our committee pointed out this morning, 16 million people in Iraq will be depending on government services for food and medicine. They have no access to that food and medicine and no one is there to help them.

We can play a role here. We missed the first part of this. We were not involved in developing policy. We can be involved right now and we should be. Every indication is that we once again are invisible.

Right from the very beginning we said that we would follow the United Nations and respect the United Nations resolution 1441 and that we would do everything we could to see that the parties complied with it. We directly communicated with senior leaders in Iraq to encourage and demand that they comply with 1441. We went as far as we could go to convince them to do that.

Resolution 1441 is the unanimous resolution that engaged Hans Blix and his weapons inspectors to go to Iraq, do their job, complete their job and report back to the United Nations with a final report. The Security Council was authorized to take steps then and only then, and no one else. We still support that. We think Hans Blix should still be there and should still be allowed to complete his job for the very people that supported the resolution in the first place. All the countries that supported him in the first place should continue their support and allow them to continue. However, that is gone now. It is over. Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors are gone.

The awful thing is that there was an agreement by all countries about the problem. There was probably even a consensus on the eventual strategy, if necessary. The problem is in the way it was invoked and in the way it was approached: no consensus was sought or found. Now we find ourselves in a split world which, to me, was unnecessary in many ways.

I do not believe the war has to be now. There should not be a war and there should not be the split in the international community. There could have been a consensus on a strategy if the countries on both sides of this debate had been just a little flexible. However they were not flexible and here we are with a split world, a split United Nations and a very dangerous situation.

Once again I will say that we were invisible in the beginning of this process and we should not have been. We should have been involved from the beginning, trying to encourage the British, the Americans and other countries involved to restructure their proposal and seek a consensus but we were invisible.

We should not be invisible now. We should be very active in helping the people. We should be very active in helping to formulate the procedure to reconstruct and help the people of Iraq.

I hope the government will be very active and proactive in that field and take a leadership role, and not be invisible again.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford Ontario

Liberal

Aileen Carroll LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I am almost speechless, but since I am in questions and comments, not quite. I find it incredulous that the hon. member can describe Canada and all the efforts it has made consistently through this entire crisis as being invisible.

It was the Canadian initiative at the United Nations that brought movement from two hardened positions, if not to the fruition we all would have hoped for, by reactivating dynamics that had ceased to be in any way productive.

As far as having been invisible, I was fortunate enough to have been to The Hague last week for the inauguration of the International Criminal Court which this country led. Often the conversation in all of the groups, with the British, the French and the Belgians, was about the Canadian initiative.

I find it appalling that the hon. member has somehow missed that when he sits on the foreign affairs committee.

Finally, when the member's hon. leader made mention of the fact that when he was in the position of prime minister and foreign affairs minister he spoke to his counterparts, I might recall for him that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have been in constant dialogue with President Bush and with Secretary of State Powell doing exactly what he advocated.

These gentlemen should be a little more careful about observing what is happening. It will be very helpful in their future analysis.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question but I am happy to respond anyway. She said she was incredulous that I suggested the government was invisible. She is right. It was not invisible. It just changed positions so many times that it neutralized every comment it made. One minister would say that Canada will participate and then the next time that it will not participate. Then it will participate with UN resolutions and then it will not. Then it will no matter what, and then maybe it will.

The fact of the matter is that it was visible, but it neutralized all of its points. The media recognized that and finally gave up on reporting the position of the government. It was visible but it was a shame. No one has to take my word for it: they can just read the editorials.