Debates of April 8th, 2003

Situation in Iraq

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for his speech as I separate the positive nature of his speech from his partisan comments. Having participated with David MacDonald in that trip to Ethiopia many years ago, I wonder if he would have anything more to add to what he was saying toward the end of his speech?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have found, and frankly I have found in other incarnations as minister of the Crown, that there are limits to what governments can do. Governments obviously must take the lead.

What struck us most about the response to the famine was that people in communities whom we had thought might not be interested became engaged in an overwhelming way. The most striking response was from the Innu community in the north, where people were accustomed to taking care of their own, to building communities.

However, I had a similar experience, as the hon. member will recall, in 1979 with regard to the Vietnamese boat people. The Government of Canada at the time offered to match the sponsorship of any private organization. The consequence was that Vietnamese refugees came to Canada in a higher proportion than any other country in the world.

The point is that if the government leads and sets up an agency that has the authority of the government, it is then possible to draw upon the myriad of talents in the country which are substantial and particularly germane with regard to some of the problems that are facing Iraq. Name a country that has had more experience with drawing diversity together. Name a country which, in its international mandate, has had more experience with dealing with the problems of poverty and establishing institutions which are seen as legitimate in the countries in which they are established.

This country has a unique reputation. I do not want to sound partisan, but it is a reputation which, for reasons of budgetary constraint, has been running down lately. I see the former minister of national defence here. Our military has skills that go beyond the typical skills of fighting, and has extraordinary skills in institution building and in rebuilding on the ground. Canada has all these skills. In addition to that, we still have a unique reputation in the world and a capacity to influence others.

I think one would find consensus in the House for the proposition that, notwithstanding our disagreements on the question of the war, there is a common belief that we should be active in leading the reconstruction. I think that would find support everywhere in the House and in the country.

I would be very interested, as I am sure other members of the House would be, if the government were to pursue in a more formal consultation, not in the heat of debate, the particular things that Canada might do. I am encouraged that the minister representing the government in the chamber has expressed an interest in this approach and I hope that it will be followed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could share my right hon. friend's untempered faith in the ethicality and integrity of the United Nations, but I would like to challenge his faith in that institution, given its track record in reconstruction, and the attitude and mismanagement by the Security Council of the crisis which led to this very conflict.

Would he care to reflect on the fact that he would put the future of Iraq in the hands of the Security Council, among whose five permanent members, Russia, China and France, collectively sold 94% of the armaments to Saddam Hussein's regime between 1972 and 1990?

Would he care to reflect on the fact that he would be handing control of the reconstruction of Iraq to France and Russia, which have systematically undermined the UN sanctions regime and have sought favour with the Iraqi regime to extract enormous commercial contracts for oil development in other areas?

Would he care to comment on the notion of giving Syria, who has a seat on the Security Council and supports Iraq's success in this war, a hand in the future of Iraq?

Would he not agree with me, when he says that Iraq may slide into chaos, that the only thing that would be saving Iraq from sliding into chaos is not Kofi Annan or bureaucrats from Syria, but rather the combined military force of the United States and the United Kingdom which alone could provide short term stability that would lead eventually to a representative regime in that country?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I do not have an untempered faith in the United Nations. My faith in the United Nations is very much tempered and very much qualified, tempered by experience.

It has plenty of failures. My argument is simply that it is the best agency available. What I have been arguing here is that it should be playing the lead role. I cannot conceive of a situation in which the United States would step aside from a major role or the United Kingdom would step aside from a major role. Those major roles would have to be played.

I agree absolutely with the member, and I think I said so in my remarks, that the only instruments we can see that can guarantee short term stability are the armies. I would add the army of Iraq, because I think that as an institution it is going to be essential to establish cohesion there, but that is in the short term and I have no doubt about the military capacity in the short term and the essential nature of that presence.

It is the medium and the longer term that I am worried about. I do not know the degree of faith of the hon. member in the Pentagon and the United States to see this through. I suspect he has some reservations, as most people would. What we have to do here is find some system that gives the world a choice. At the moment, there is no choice. There are a few lonely voices that are talking about giving the United Nations a mandate, but no one is taking the active leadership to provide that kind of mandate. That means that the burden will fall, by default, to the United States.

I commend the speech given by the former secretary Baker in Toronto and, indeed, the study undertaken by the Baker Institute and the Council of Foreign Relations on which that speech was based, which spelled out a different and much broader approach. That is in a sense what I am advocating here. I have not given up on the United Nations, but I am not blind about its weaknesses nor naive about its capacities. I simply think it is the best agency available to the world in these circumstances.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the right hon. member for Calgary Centre for his as usual insightful and reasonable remarks on this issue. I think he is right to be focusing now on the issue of reconstruction. Having seen the Gordian knot of a position tied by this government and the convoluted and contortionist attempts now to somehow reverse itself and its position, I think that in regard to the time for attention to what role Canada can reasonably play the question that comes to mind for most Canadians is this: Is it too late for us to have credibility on the issue?

I think the right hon. member has waylaid some of that concern in suggesting that Canada can still play a very significant role. My question to him is with respect to that role and having any real say in the reconstruction effort. Is it too late for Canada to play a substantive role in having an actual presence on the ground, given that we know the government has been disingenuous in suggesting that we are not there with ships in the gulf, with soldiers on the ground as part of British forces and participating in the AWACS effort? Is it not right to suggest that Canada could now acknowledge and be straightforward in saying we have people there and that we are going to condone that presence and send more if required, to have an actual presence and then get on with the job of reconstruction?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my view has been from the outset that this is an action authorized by the United Nations. We support the United Nations. We should have been there.

I think that it is confusing and hypocritical for the government to pretend that while Canadian soldiers on exchange are subject to mortal combat we are not there. Of course we are there; they are there. The Prime Minister might not be there. The Canadian Forces are there.

Would it be helpful for us in these late days in the war to ask for a presence on the ground? I think that would depend on how long the fighting is going to continue. The real question is, do we have the credibility given our recent record to make a case for the United Nations? I believe we have that credibility. If the war persists, then I think we should consider making an honest nation of ourselves and having our policy follow our practice, which is to be there.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, could the member please explain to us the reason for the change in his position? It was not long ago that in this House and other places he was most emphatic there should be no intervention by Canada unless the UN Security Council approved it. Now I think there has been a change of position. Could he explain what influenced his change of mind on that?

Not too many days ago he was fairly frantically looking for a legal opinion about intervention. Has he found a lawyer who has given him the legal opinion so that he can also make up his mind on that issue?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the hon. member. Very often in the House when people speak a lot they do not have the opportunity to listen as much as they might like to.

The House would know that on several occasions I have cited, including today, mais je l'ai fait en français, resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 of the United Nations as giving to this intervention, in my view, the legal authority of the United Nations. So I believe that this is a conflict under United Nations authority. I have said that for some weeks. I am pleased to have the opportunity, I think having communicated that to everyone else in the country, to communicate it now to the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the motion. It gives me an opportunity to speak on the war in Iraq after three weeks of fighting. I should note, too, that I am sharing my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.

One thing that has emerged very clearly thus far into the war is that the coalition forces, the United States and Great Britain, are no longer talking very much about disarming Iraq. The issue now really is about regime change. I would suggest that all along the motive for attacking Iraq, with or without the UN, was to change the regime. Now we have a situation where, without the support of much of the world, the United States and Great Britain have attacked Iraq unilaterally with the intention of liberating the people from the dictator Saddam Hussein.

Oddly enough, Canadians have a special knowledge of the issue of countries attacking other countries in order to liberate them from despotic governments, because I point out that the very first time that the United States attempted to invade another country with the intention of regime change was the attack on Canada in 1812.

So far in the debate this has not come up, but the parallels to the present situation in Iraq are certainly instructive. In 1812, Britain was still at war with Napoleon and most of the British troops were committed in Europe. Canada at that time was British North America, divided into Upper and Lower Canada.

The Americans were fresh from their war of independence and had the attitude that people north of the border, the people in Upper and Lower Canada, would obviously dislike the monarchy and would want to partake in the new-found democratic liberties of the United States. Therefore, the Americans declared war and invaded Canada, fully expecting that the people of Canada, both the French Canadians in Quebec or Lower Canada and the mainly British and some American stock in Upper Canada, would immediately support the invading forces.

The opposite occurred. Actually, the war of 1812 to 1814, which is not well remembered in the United States but is part of our lore, was a vicious fight undertaken mainly by militia in Upper and Lower Canada.

What surprised the American forces when they invaded across the Niagara frontier and toward Montreal was that instead of being greeted with open arms, the farmers, mostly the farmers of the areas, mobilized under the few British regulars that were available and fought back.

There were some famous battles. One battle was very close to my riding and that was the Battle of Stoney Creek, where an invading American army of overwhelming superiority--and we have to appreciate that in those days the Americans had overwhelming superiority--advanced up from the Niagara frontier and were defeated in a night battle at Stoney Creek in 1813, saving Upper Canada. The forces that defeated them were about 700 mixed regulars and local farmers from my immediate area.

The same phenomenon occurred that same year in Lower Canada, where again the invading American army overwhelmingly outnumbered the defending Canadian army, which was made up primarily of French Canadian militia, whose general was the Marquis de Salaberry. Again the Americans were defeated and pushed back.

In the end we should remember that particular war. It was a guerilla war. It was fought with irregulars. It was fought viciously. The Americans burned Niagara-on-the-Lake, and the British and the Canadian forces in retaliation took the fort at Niagara at the bayonet, and a lot of blood, death and destruction resulted. Here we have two people who are very similar in culture fighting in this particular way.

The lesson, the lesson of history, and why it is so pertinent to what is happening in Iraq now is that even though a country may have the best intentions with respect to regime change, when an invasion does take place ordinary people defend hearth and home. It does not matter who their leader is or was; they only see the invader and they fight back. These wars are inevitably vicious and inevitably fought with great loss of life and blood.

We can imagine the situation in Iraq now. This is the reason why I think that attacking Iraq was such a bad idea: The Americans and the British are coming in with their tanks and their soldiers in camouflage suits and flak jackets, with highly sophisticated weapons, sunglasses and night vision goggles, and they are fighting with people who basically have only a gun and the shirt on their backs. There is no question of the outcome, but the problem is what happens after that.

Canada was lucky, because in the end, after two years of war in which the Americans had suffered several defeats, mostly defeats in fact, there was negotiation with the British and a decision was made to call it quits. The war ended with no trade of territory on either side.

In the case of Iraq, obviously the Americans will win and Iraq will be defeated, but after that the danger is that there will be anger and hatred that will prevail for many years afterward. If the point of liberation is to bring democracy and freedom to a people, that needs to be the actual outcome.

I fear that the lesson of history tells us that whenever a country has invaded another country with the intention of liberation, when that country has not invited the other country or declared war itself, it has always been a failure. The war may be won and the battles may be won, but the hatred that extends afterwards has caused all kinds of problems in the years that have followed. One can cite very quickly a few examples: the Spanish-American war, in which the Americans invaded Spain--and Cuba and the Philippines--and fought a guerrilla war for five years afterwards. I do not think the Philippines or the Cubans felt particularly liberated. Vietnam is another example. We can do examples with Napoleon when he invaded Spain in 1808. He expected the Spanish people to rise up. In fact it turned out to be an awful, vicious war that weakened Napoleon's empire.

The point finally comes to this. There are two styles, two options, of bringing democracy, human rights, the rule of law, equality of opportunity and freedom of speech to the world. We can try to do it by force. What distresses me is that I think this is a case where the advisers to the president have convinced him that the easy way to bring democracy to the Middle East is by force. I believe that is doomed to failure. We cannot impose democracy on a people. They have to find it themselves. That is the Canadian way.

The war of 1812 was a defining moment for Canada, because if the Americans had not invaded, then the English Canadians of Upper Canada and the French Canadians of Lower Canada would probably have gone their own way and developed stronger ties to the United States and would have eventually been absorbed by the United States, but the opposite happened. Because the Americans invaded, it united the Canadian people to resist the invader.

I suggest we are now at another defining moment. The reason we are not in the war is because of essential principles. The Prime Minister said principles, and they are essential principles. That is because the Canada that has evolved from the war of 1812 is a nation that walks the talk. We really do believe in equality of opportunity. We really do believe in freedom of speech. We really do believe in democracy. We really do believe in basic human rights and the rule of law.

The reason why we cannot join in this war against Iraq is because it is against the rule of international law. Canada chose bravely in my view, because like Mexico we are incredibly intimately tied economically to the United States. It takes bravery to stand on one's principles, and this country has.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, I am proud to be a Canadian.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, could the member explain to us what principles the government stood on in 1999 when it agreed to join its allies and bomb Kosovo without a UN Security Council resolution? The UN Security Council said “no” and the allies, including Canada, said “yes” to stop a madman named Milosevic.

What principles did the government stand on then that are not in place now to stop a madman whose bona fides are far more horrific than Milosevic?

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

Madam Speaker, respect for human rights. What was clearly happening in the case of the former Yugoslavia was that there appeared to be a genocide occurring. There was a major problem occurring.

I would point out that this question of whether we should unilaterally attack another country to liberate it, to bring democracy, is not a question that is driven by whether the UN Security Council approves or not. This is a question that had to be decided by Canada, in terms of these five fundamental principles, and the rule of law and the respect for basic human rights applied in this case.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to address first all the families wiped out, in whole or in part, by the war and terrorism, wherever they may be and whatever their origins. I cannot and dare not imagine their loss. These words are perhaps small comfort, but I am forced by my conscience to speak them.

We are debating today a motion that I will address from a particular angle since, since 1998, I have the honour of chairing the Canadian section of the Canada-United States Permanent Joint Board on Defence, commonly known as PJBD.

This institution was established in 1940, under the Ogdensburg declaration signed by Prime Minister Mackenzie King and President Roosevelt. The board members are diplomats and senior military personnel from both countries. My American counterpart and I report directly to the leaders of our respective governments.

The PJBD is a unique and privileged forum for Canada. We are the only country that shares such an institution with the U.S. The PJBD has examined virtually every important joint defence measure undertaken since the end of the second world war. It reflects the profound common interests of our two nations on matters of continental defence and global peace and security. It remains as important today as it was upon its creation over 60 years ago.

I am very proud indeed of the role that PJBD plays in promoting the bilateral Canada-U.S. defence and security relationship, and I am very grateful to have the opportunity to be part of this important process.

First, I would like to express my pride in my team on the PJBD. This is a talented, dedicated and inspiring group of men and women who do a wonderful job of representing our country.

I would like to pay special tribute to the head of our military group, General Cameron Ross, who will be leaving us in June. From my seat in the House of Commons, I want to acknowledge the deep values of commitment and integrity and the acute sense of diplomacy of this brilliant officer of the Canadian Armed Forces. I would like to wish him good luck in his future endeavours.

I would like to sincerely acknowledge the quality of our armed forces. I have spent time with many members of Canada's military in Quebec City, Ottawa, Comox, Bosnia, Brussels and elsewhere, and have found the same professionalism, the same upright character, the same humanity. They are a source of pride to us all. I wish to very humbly and very sincerely pay tribute to them all, and today in particular to those who bring us honour in the Middle East.

The last meeting of the PJBD, was held on March 19 at the Pentagon, within a few days of our Prime Minister's announcement that we would not be taking part in the war in Iraq. That was mere hours before the start of the military intervention in Iraq. I must admit that I had some concerns about that meeting.

My own discussions with senior officials of the U.S. reveal that our American counterparts were indeed disappointed in Canada's position. Of that there was no doubt. However I did find strength in explaining quite clearly that Canada's decision was one based on principle and taken by a sovereign government. I was equally clear in articulating Canada's stance, especially our commitment to multilateralism.

While our counterparts disagreed with our position, I do believe they understood. This was a case of friends explaining their positions to friends. We, Canada and the U.S., have worked hard to develop these kinds of ties which allow us to speak frankly about our differences.

Of course throughout history Canada and the U.S. have had disagreements but never have we let these disagreements compromise the core commitment of our two countries to the joint defence and security of the people of North America.

Since September 11, the nature of the security and defence dialogue has expanded and deepened significantly. The PJBD has responded accordingly. The last two meetings in Comox, B.C. and in Washington, D.C. have explored the broadening definitions of security with people from a variety of departments and agencies from both countries, including the RCMP, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, the United States Office for Homeland Security, the North American Air Space Defence Command and the United States Northern Command.

As I mentioned earlier, the nature of the defence relationship with the U.S. has changed dramatically since September 11. I would like to talk briefly about how the relationship has adapted to the new realities.

The creation of the U.S. Northern Command in the wake of the terrorist attack of September 11 became a catalyst for the enhancement of Canada-U.S. security co-operation. The enhanced security co-operation agreement, which was signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Secretary of State Powell last December, was a significant achievement, and will contribute greatly to the safety and security of Canadians and Americans alike.

As is well known, the agreement establishes a binational planning group located within Norad in Colorado Springs. The planning group will co-ordinate binational maritime surveillance and intelligence sharing, provide attack warning and threat assessments to both governments, develop contingency plans for binational military support to civil authorities and conduct joint exercises.

The planning group is headed by a Canadian general who reports to both governments. This binational co-operation and Canada's leadership role is unprecedented. The results that will stem from this initiative will improve the security of Canadians and Americans alike. In the event of an emergency it will save many lives.

In the war against terrorism, Canada stands side by side with the U.S. The outpouring of heartfelt support for the U.S. in the early hours and days following September 11 is well known. Our military contribution was and continues to be impressive on the land, on the seas and in the air.

At its height, Canadian forces in operations in Afghanistan and southwest Asia involved more than 3,400 personnel, the fourth largest contribution to the international coalition.

Today more than 1,200 Canadian military personnel remain dedicated to fighting terrorism in the Persian Gulf alongside the United States and other allies. Canada currently provides command to task force 151 operating in the Persian Gulf and Canada will soon be making a significant contribution to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

The list of areas of cooperation is too long to go into here, but it is nonetheless impressive and absolutely essential. For instance, there is the smart border declaration, which is intended to facilitate the safe and secure border crossing of goods and travellers so essential to trade.

I would like to address my last words to my counterpart, Mr. Jack David, the chair of the U.S. section, a man for whom I have great respect.

Jack, we have heard too many unfortunate comments on both sides of the border, aiming at our leaders, institutions or even our people. I know he and I will remain above the fray. I know we will keep focused on continuing to build together a relationship which is second to none. I know we will find ways to ensure that PJBD will do its share to alleviate the tensions and demonstrate the wisdom which is so essential not only for us in North America but indeed for the world, in full respect for each other's sovereignty.

My support of the motion we are addressing is not dictated by a party line. It is dictated by one very simple reality. If we cannot prevent war, I want to help build peace. That is the spirit in which I hope that this same principle applies to the United Nations.

The UN has proven incapable of preventing war, but it must play a key role in building peace. In this connection, I wish to express my very strong support of the comments made by President Bush this morning.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to dismiss something in terms of the position of members of the NDP. I believe in freedom of speech and debate and everything else but their arguments are not only juvenile but harmful. They continue to say that in relation to Iraq, the United States is motivated for the purpose of its own selfish acquisition, whether it be land or other interests.

I would like to repeat the words of Colin Powell who was emphatic on this point when recently asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if the United States was not motivated in relation to Iraq because of it wanting to acquire land. Colin Powell responded by saying that the only land they were interested in was just enough to bury their sons and daughters who were fighting for the liberation of those people on that foreign land. The NDP would do well to consider that.

I also would like to emphasize the fact that the NDP's position has been consistent. It has not wandered in any way, shape or form no matter what the UN says in relation to Iraq. I do appreciate that consistency.

That is better than the remarks made by the Progressive Conservative leader who, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, stated that we should not be involved without Security Council resolution. He even furthered that statement on March 17 in the House. He asked the Prime Minister if he had a legal opinion as to whether this attack could be justified in international law.

Less than three weeks ago, the leader of the Progressive Conservatives, was still of the view that we should not be in Iraq without UN approval. Then he said that he did not know. Then he asked the Prime Minister, of all people, for a legal opinion. The Prime Minister has given legal opinions on both sides of the fence. Once he said that action was justified. Then he said that it was not justified. Now the Tory leader has apparently moved to the Canadian Alliance position. We still do not know what moved him to do that, and that is why I put the question to him.

Very clearly, today after the Prime Minister spoke, our leader dissected with surgical precision the body of the Liberal's position relating to the Iraq crisis over the several months, a Liberal body whose spine is hopelessly contorted as a result of the number of breathtaking somersaults it has performed over the Iraq situation. No wonder we so often see the faces of Liberal MPs contorted in pain every time the Prime Minister forces them to twist into a new position on Iraq.

While the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives have changed positions on this issue in terms of official policy, the Canadian Alliance position relating to Iraq has been consistent, it has been public and it has been clearly articulated by our leader and by others. Over the last several months it has not changed. As a reminder, support for this intervention by the Canadian Alliance has not changed.

When we put out our policy position a number of months ago on this issue, we said that we should support the UN process, resolution 1441 to disarm and all the other resolutions, as far as possible. We made a third point and hoped it would never have to come to this but it did. We also said that should any Security Council member falter in his or her commitment to enforce UN resolution 1441, then Canada could not be neutral, that we must stand with our allies in such a time. We repeatedly said that it would be strategically unwise and morally untenable for us to be neutral in the face of a force and a menace as devious, as twisted and as evil as Saddam Hussein. We said that we could not be neutral and we have maintained that position.

It has been gratifying to see public opinion move to that position as Canadians avail themselves of the information available on the whole situation. The polls have moved. We however have maintained our position. It is consistent and principled. The Liberals have moved somewhat with the polls.

Why did the Canadian Alliance and now most Canadians take the view that we should be with our allies? It is important to review this.

What would bring a coalition of freedom loving, freedom respecting nations to such a serious decision to actually intervene in another country to disarm a twisted dictator and lead to a regime change? That is a very serious decision. What would have caused that?

We have to recall of course the history of Saddam Hussein himself. Since 1979 as the dictator in that country, over a million of his own citizens have died under his hand one way or another. The huge majority of those deaths were during the Iran-Iraq conflict. Since 1991 over 100,000 Iraqis have died directly under his hands and the hands of his regime. The gruesome reality of this is becoming more and more evident as the allies make horrifying discoveries. Those 100,000 deaths are just since 1991.

We always hear the concern about Iraqi citizens. We are concerned about civilians who are dying and may continue for a few more days to die in this contest. Everyone should be very clearly reminded that most Iraqis have died at the hands of Saddam Hussein, including the children. The mortality rate for children under five years is horrendous in Iraq because of Saddam Hussein.

The 100,000 who have died since 1991 do not include those who have disappeared in torture cells. That number does not include those who have experienced the horrors of his rape rooms. Many times when those crimes are committed on people, those crimes are actually videotaped and sent to the families of the victims.

We are talking about somebody who thinks nothing about using acid baths and all types of other horrendous methods to eliminate those who would oppose him. Of course we are talking about somebody who has gassed to death thousands of his own people. The majority of those he gassed to death were women and children.

He has not lived up to the promises he made when a ceasefire, not an armistice, was struck in 1991 after he was finally pushed out of Kuwait. It took 46 days to do that, by the way, to push him out of Kuwait. He has broken every condition of that ceasefire and 17 UN resolutions. He has a past history of invading other countries. He has a past history of attacking other countries. He is a menace to peace and security who has a proven record.

Hans Blix himself said and still maintains that Saddam Hussein has not accounted for 6,500 chemical bombs he admitted he had. He has not accounted for the thousands of gallons of anthrax. He has not accounted for the tonnes of VX gas. We are now hearing that those awful elements are indeed present. Things are being analysed right now in that context. He has never ever accounted for those things which he admitted he did have.

He also has as a stated intent the annihilation of another nation. He is not only a proven genocidal killer, he is an intended genocidal killer because he wants to see the nation of Israel annihilated.

The United Nations in its wisdom felt that all of this added together justified an intervention. That justification has taken place. In this particular time when the allies took the decision to disarm that madman and set people free, Canada was not involved because of the Prime Minister's decision.

In 1914 when the allies took a decision to move against this type of evil regime, Canada was there with the allies. In 1939 when the allies took a decision, without the United States at that time, to move against a horrendous regime, Canada was there. In the early 1950s, again when the allies took a decision to stop a murderous regime in North Korea, Canada was there. In 1998 when a decision was made that allies should do some bombing in Iraq, Canada was there on that decision without UN Security Council approval. In 1999 when allies made the decision to bomb Kosovo to stop a madman by the name of Milosevic, Canada was there to stop the madman who had killed so many thousands of people.

What the madman Saddam has talked about doing is far more horrendous, is far worse, and this time Canada is not there. We are on the other side of the new geopolitical divide. Our allies are now Libya, Iran, Syria, communist China, Russia and Germany. We stare across the divide at our former allies, Australia, Great Britain, the United States, Spain, the new emerging nations of the new Europe. More countries in Europe by the way support the allied coalition than oppose it.

Because France vetoed it, said it would never allow the coalition to move ahead and it would never acknowledge that in the Security Council, our Prime Minister ceded our sovereignty. A decision should be made on the best interests of Canada, the best interests of democracy and freedom around the world. We gave that away because of where our Prime Minister stood on this issue, ceding our decision to France saying it would always veto it.

The people of Iraq will be liberated. They will remember the Australians. They will remember the Brits. They will remember the Americans. They will remember others who were there for them. They will also remember that Canada was not there.

Hopefully the government will gather its principles together and be so available to work to reconstruct, should we be invited, the very principles of freedom and democracy, that we can once again regain our standing in the world and stand as those people who believe in freedom and democracy and are willing to support it everywhere.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. SARS has had a dramatic and sometimes fatal effect in many areas since mid-March. Many businesses have been negatively affected by this disease. Therefore, I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to pass a motion, that the government investigate measures to compensate medium and small sized businesses that have seriously been affected by the recent outbreak of SARS.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there agreement?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague obviously does not agree with the government's policy. Does he think that Canada is well placed now to be of assistance in the rebuilding of Iraq and helping the people of Iraq recover their lives?

How does he think the enormous oil potential of Iraq might be used in that reconstruction in a way that will be acceptable to the people, above all of course, the people of Iraq?

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do think Canada is well placed to offer what we know. We have much to offer in terms of rebuilding. We have much to offer in terms of democratic institutions being built. We have much to offer in terms of understanding what economic freedom is about. The tragic thing is to date we have not been invited to do that and that shows a huge shift in position.

After 1945 Canada was the fourth largest military power in the world. Canada was asked, as were Mike Pearson and others, and I do not mind giving credit to a Liberal where credit is due, to be significantly involved in the formation of the United Nations, of NATO, to be involved in other discussions, GATT discussions. We have always been asked and have had a presence.

However, because we have diminished our support for our military, because the government has shown itself reluctant in terms of banning terrorist groups, because we have not been able to take a clear position, we have lost our prominence. We can begin to claw our way back inch by inch to become a middle power, a nation of influence because Canadians do have much to offer. I hope the government will start taking the steps to put us back on that path to having some influence again where it once was. We have much to offer.

On the question of oil, it is very clear that France is heavily implicated in its oil and gas contracts in Iraq right now. It has broken UN resolutions to do that and to be there. It has an untenable position at the Security Council. It has an extreme conflict of interest in terms of even suggesting it could veto it.

I agree with the position of the United States and the allies on the oil interests that are there. That belongs to the Iraqi people. As the institutions of democracy and a civil society are built into Iraq, the Iraqi people, and not Saddam Hussein, will begin to enjoy the profits and the abundance of their own natural resource.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague the critic for foreign affairs for the Canadian Alliance on his presentation.

I would like to ask him about the political manoeuvring we are seeing today in the House. The Canadian Alliance brought forward a motion last week that asked the government to do some things and today there will be a vote on it, and here today we are debating a motion brought forward by the government. Exactly what does that mean to the member? Does he have any comment on the policy the government is using to bring that forward?

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I may surprise my colleagues in the House in that I am going to give credit to the federal Liberals. They have the capability to play the national media outflow of information in a way that is admirable. They changed their minds, and our leader has already gone through a litany of their flip-flops. The federal Liberals have damaged Canada's reputation in terms of flipping and flopping on this. Then when the Canadian Alliance came out with a motion of support for the allies, not only did the Liberals rush to put out one of their own but look at how they marvellously controlled the flow of that for three or four days in the media. I am giving them credit. I am not complaining. For three or four days, they made it appear as if they were the ones taking the lead on this issue.

It is political gerrymandering to the extreme in terms of how they have set the boundaries of debate on this. The Prime Minister said, or I think he said today, that the Liberals do not support regime change. I am just reading their own motion here and they say that their hope is that the U.S.-led coalition accomplishes its mission. The mission of the allies is regime change. That is in the motion. However, the Prime Minister stood again and said he does not believe in regime change.

I will close by saying he also insulted many Canadians who have raised real concerns about the position. We believe in freedom of speech, and Canadians take different views on this. However he labelled Canadians who have raised concerns about this fearmongers. He tells them to be quiet, that they are a bunch of scaremongers. However to date he has still said nothing publicly to his Liberal MPs who have used horrendous language in terms of launching their verbal insults and verbal missiles at our neighbours in a time of war.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As evidence of how important this issue is to the government, it does not even have quorum in the House. I thought that we should bring that to your attention as soon as possible.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Resuming debate.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here to speak to the government's motion today, although when we look at what is happening it is clear that this is simply a move on the part of government to do damage control.

The government is in trouble. It has shown a complete lack of leadership on an issue that is of vital interest to the country. It knew it was in trouble so the Prime Minister was sent off to Winnipeg. It has the finance minister, the former finance minister and future leader of the Liberal Party, the member for LaSalle—Émard, saying that the government had nothing to do with the anti-Americanism but neither the Prime Minister nor the government did anything to put a stop to that. This has hurt our country. Now that is showing up and the government is in damage control mode. Of course it has to be because its lack of leadership on this issue has indeed been damaging.

I will go through the government's motion piece by piece. The first section of the motion reads:

That this House re-affirm:

the substantial sense of the House, voted on March 20, 2003, in support of the government's decision not to participate in the military intervention in Iraq;

However I want to be clear that while that did pass the House, it certainly was not supported by this party and will not be supported by this party. We believe Canada should have been there with our allies to help remove Saddam Hussein and his regime, so we could get on with rebuilding that country, freeing the world and the area of this threat with weapons of mass destruction. We certainly did not support the motion, nor, in my opinion, should anyone else in the House have supported it .

The second part of the government motion reads:

the unbreakable bonds of values, family, friendship and mutual respect that will always characterize Canada's relationship with the United States of American and the United Kingdom;

So says the second clause of their motion today.

However the government's words and actions over the past months have shown exactly the opposite in fact. They have shown that the government and the members of the government, including cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister himself, have no respect for our friends to the south, our American neighbours. They have spoken out against our British allies and friends as well in many ways over the last months of debate. That hardly jibes with the second clause in their motion today.

The third clause of the motion reads:

our pride in the work of the members of the Canadian Forces who are deployed in the Persian Gulf region;

The government is here to say that it supports with pride the troops but it has done nothing to support our military personnel in action.

I will come back to that later because I believe that is probably the most despicable thing the government has done in this whole issue. The lack of leadership is one thing but not showing support for our serving men and women, not even acknowledging that they are laying their lives on the line on behalf of Canadians to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his regime and the weapons of mass destruction, not even acknowledging that that is in fact what is happening, is absolutely unthinkable. Yet that is what the government has done.

The motions goes on to state:

our hope that the U.S.-led coalition accomplishes its mission as quickly as possible with the fewest casualties;

Yet the government continues to say that it is against regime change.

What exactly is the government saying? It wants the coalition members to be successful but it does not want Saddam Hussein and his regime removed. I would like the government to explain that. I think the Prime Minister still said that he does not support regime change.

I would like the government to explain to Canadians how on earth we can start rebuilding in Iraq and start providing the kind of aid and humanitarian action that is necessary if we leave Saddam Hussein and his regime in power. I simply cannot understand how the government can take those absolutely diametrically opposed positions and yet that is what it has done.

The government further states in its motion:

the importance of self-restraint on the part of all Members of the House in their comments on the war in Iraq while our American friends are in battle;

Translated, that means the government wants to muzzle the opposition.

Why does the government want to muzzle the opposition? It wants to muzzle the opposition because the opposition took a principled stand on this issue. Other opposition parties, such as the Bloc and the NDP, while I do not agree with their position, at least took a position on the issue while the government did not. It should not be allowed to muzzle the opposition nor will it be allowed to.

Finally, the government says that it reaffirms the commitment of Canada to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq. Again, how can there be any reconstruction in Iraq when the government still takes the position that it is against regime change? I do not know what it wants. Does it want the coalition forces to stop now, hope that Saddam Hussein and his regime will come from the ashes and continue to lead Iraq? If that is the case, how on earth can we possibly do what is necessary to allow Iraqis to build a free and democratic country over time? How can we provide them with humanitarian aid and the rebuilding that is necessary? It simply does not make any sense. The government's motion is not in line with reality.

I just want to point to the motion that the Canadian Alliance put forth last week and that will be voted on here today, the motion that led to the government putting forth its motion that we are debating today. I want to read this and I want Canadians to think as I am reading this. Why on earth would the government not support this motion? I do not know that it is not going to but why else would it put forth its own motion?

The Canadian Alliance motion reads:

That the House of Commons of Canada express its regret and apologize for offensive and inappropriate statements made against the United States of America by certain Members of this House; that it reaffirm the United States to be Canada's closest friend and ally and hope that the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is successful in removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power; and that the House urge the Government of Canada to assist the coalition in the reconstruction of Iraq.

That was the Canadian Alliance motion from last week. It will be voted on right after question period today. The government, I guess, will not support that motion. I would like Canadians to ask themselves and to ask members of the government exactly why they feel they cannot support that motion. It is difficult for me to understand.

The Prime Minister in his presentation said that the government stood on principle on this whole issue of what we should do with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I think the position was based on principles and I want to go quickly through some of those principles.

I think the government's position was based on the principle of not making a decision when one is needed. It was based on the principle of not supporting our allies again and again over the past months. The government's position has been based on the principle of not contributing to removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. It has been based on the principle that Canada would be a spectator on the sideline, rather than an active participant in carrying out its responsibility as a serious nation in the world.

The government's action is based on the principle of reducing our country to a position where we have little or no influence in the world community. It is based on the principle of not recognizing that we do have members of the Canadian Forces who are contributing to removing Saddam Hussein and his regime. The government denies that. It is absolutely unthinkable that the government will not even recognize that so that these people can at least get the satisfaction of knowing that their country and their government recognizes that they are putting their lives on the line on behalf of their country in a very worthy cause, that of removing Saddam Hussein and his regime. That is probably one of the most despicable things the government has done on principle over the past years and over the past months.

The government on principle has taken the position that Canada should contribute aid to Iraq but do nothing to contribute to the removal of Saddam Hussein. How can we provide that aid if the regime is still in place? It has acted on the principle that there should be no regime change but now supports Saddam's demise, I think, but I do not know how it squares that. It has acted on the principle--and this is the real principle--that taking a stand based on polling done is the only thing that matters to the government.

Those are the principles on which the government has stood. I would suggest to hon. members that none of those principles show the leadership that Canadians deserve from a government and have not been given by the government.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Lakeland and the defence critic for the Canadian Alliance, raised a question of principle and whether the Liberal government was standing on principle, and introduced a number of questions in that regard.

I would suggest that the Liberals have taken a pretty unprincipled stand and, if they think it is principled, they are far wrong. I think they have tried to play on the anti-American sentiment that they thought was out there. Now they are finding that Canadians are rising up and saying that they support our American allies as we have in many of these conflicts in the past.

We see a government today that is quickly trying to slide into a position where it can change its position because the polls are not what they were a couple of weeks ago on this when the Liberals thought they would be on the winning side of this issue.

There are a number of parties in the House that have taken principled stands. I would say that the NDP has taken a principled stand, although I do not agree with it. The Bloc, I believe, has taken a principled stand, as well as the Canadian Alliance. I think that is what Canadians are looking for. They are looking for leadership. They are looking for people who clearly articulate their view and their vision.

I ask my colleague, should some of the Liberal leadership contenders, those who aspire to be the prime minister and who in fact will win the Liberal leadership once the convention is held and automatically become the Prime Minister of Canada, for example the member for LaSalle—Émard, not be putting out a principled stand and telling Canadians where they stand on this issue?

Does my colleague agree with me that the member for LaSalle—Émard seems to be hiding in his bunker some place and we need to draw him out to see where he stands on these issues?