Debates of April 8th, 2003

Situation in Iraq

[An hon. member]

Stop playing politics on this issue.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I hear a member of government saying that we should not play politics on this issue. That is laughable. When the Liberals put forth a motion there is nothing but politics. If they were serious about what they were saying, they would support our motion of last Thursday. I read out the motion. What possible reason could they have for not supporting that? They are playing the most disgusting kind of politics I have ever seen. I think Canadians deserve better.

The member has raised a very important issue. The three leadership candidates, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the heritage minister and the finance minister, absolutely have a responsibility to come out and tell Canadians their position on this issue. Because they have not done that, we have to believe they fully support the position of the government, whatever that is. I wonder if any Canadian will want any of those three members to lead this country when they are simply unwilling to come out and take a position on an issue that is so vital to this country. None of them have, which leads me to believe that they fully support the position of the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I was here this morning and listened attentively to the speech given by the Prime Minister. It was a fantastic speech on the situation in the Middle East.

On the other side, I could not listen for more than five minutes to the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition, in which he only mentioned dates from Hansard . If that is the calibre of the speech we are hearing from the opposition on the very important issue of the Middle East, I feel sorry for the opposition.

I have a question for the hon. member. If he is so knowledgeable about the situation in the Middle East and on American foreign policy, maybe he could tell the House who is next on the list? If he has this information he should please share it with us so we can all be enlightened by the policy of the Alliance Party.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, what was clear from the Prime Minister's speech is that he and his government are in full retreat on this issue. The Liberals simply took a position based on public opinion. There was no principle behind it other than it was an easy decision to make because public opinion was 80% in favour of the position they took. However that position is changed now, so of course the government--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order, please.

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

The member asked a question but he is not here now.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

We do not refer to members' presence or absence in the House, thank you. It is very difficult to hear when there is shouting back and forth.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford.

I would like to say right away that I am very proud of the decision of the Canadian government not to enter into the war against Iraq. I know that victory by the English, Australian and American coalition is imminent. However, despite this imminent victory, we must make our position perfectly clear. My position is that I am totally opposed to a war that I feel is completely unjustified.

I have received a great many messages recently, some of them very critical and many of them raising the issue that our trade with the United States will suffer because of the decision not to support the war. I would like to quote one of our colleagues who said in caucus the other day—and I am sure that this colleague would not mind me saying it here, “What is more important? Money from trade with the United States, or human lives?”

On way or another, war entails casualties. Often, innocent people are involved, as is the case here, with troops sent to war by their leaders and especially families, women and children who are injured and die on the front lines.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about resolution 1441. He brought up all the flip-flops that the government was supposed to have undergone.

First, I would remind him that resolution 1441 was backed by all the countries of the Security Council, including the U.S. and the U.K. Logically, we could also say that the U.S. and the U.K. themselves flip-flopped. At one point they had said that resolution 1441 was sufficient for them to use as a step toward war and then they changed their minds. The U.S. and the U.K. initiated, with Spain, the second resolution they presented to the Security Council, in addition to resolution 1441.

If, therefore, they were satisfied with resolution 1441, why would they have presented a second resolution? If they did present a second resolution, surely, in fairness, they should have had to be bound by its result. However the decision really was if they won the second resolution in the Security Council, then they would go to war. If they lost, they would still go to war.

The opposition has brought up the veto of France. That was never the question. The fact is the second resolution did not have the backing of the small powers that made the difference; Mexico, Chile, Guinea, Cameroon, which resisted all the pressures to vote for the second resolution.

I point out that resolution 1441 had nothing to do with a change of regime. It was strictly about disarmament. In the view of this government, and so many governments around the world, disarmament was happening.

Now that the war is a fait accompli and is about to end, of course we hope for a rapid end to it. We certainly hope that there will be a cease fire soon, that the coalition will judge that its aims have been accomplished and that firing will cease.

We were told that one of the reasons this war was so imperative was that we had to get rid of weapons of mass destruction on the soil of Iraq. Today, after 20 days of war, there have been all kinds of rumours that these WMDs, as they are called, were found here and there, that so-called barrels of chemical warfare agents were found and that white powder was found. Every time these were tested, a new press conference was held to say that, no, that these were not weapons of mass of destruction after all.

We went to war on the basis of destroying weapons of mass destruction. The war is nearly over and we have not found any.

War, at times, is inevitable. We concede that sometimes there is no other way. We entered the first world war, the second world war and the Korean war. We felt that war then was inevitable. This time the war was not inevitable. The Security Council was dealing with it, inspections were working and Iraq was disarming. The reason war happened was the Security Council was set aside and a new objective came into being, that of regime change. If wars become legitimate to ensure regime change, where do we start and where do we end?

My colleague very fairly put this question to the opposition a few minutes ago. Where next do we strike in the Middle East and elsewhere? Do we strike against Libya? Do we go against Syria? Do we go against Mugabe? Do we go against North Korea?

Today we heard that our foreign minister made an intervention regarding Cuba, denouncing the tremendous penalties that had been visited upon Cubans who had spoken against the regime, namely prison terms ranging from 25 to 30 years. The foreign minister intervened to state that this was completely unacceptable under the declaration of human rights.

What do we do? Do we move against Cuba to remove Castro? Where does this cease, if the doctrine of pre-emptive war becomes the doctrine that rules the international world? How do we select the next dictator? What do we do if we do not like that individual and want to push that person aside? This is fraught with imminent danger because it is selective. Surely we would not select someone we could not remove. We would have to make judgment calls.

Was Tiananmen Square enough for us to take action against the Chinese government?

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

Milosevic.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Milosevic, yes. What about the Soviet Union? We certainly did not interfere there. We let the Russians decide for themselves to remove their dictatorship.

If we start on a selective basis to declare pre-emptive wars every time a dictator does not please any one country, be it the United States, or the United Kingdom, or Canada or France, we create a world of international rogue states. We cannot tolerate a world where the United Nations, where the multilateral consensus of nations, will not be the paramount voice.

Since I am sharing my time with my colleague, I will close now by saying that whatever happens in this debate or the next debate, even if public opinion swings 90% in favour of this present war, even if I stand-alone, this war is unjustified. War is abominable. It is a last resort and not something we should tolerate.

I am very proud that our government decided to stand tall and go against the tide. If public opinion were to swing drastically, if the official opposition were to be right in the polls, I still think pre-emptive wars are totally wrong. They are morally wrong. What they do in the long run and the short run is to kill, maim and destroy populations of innocent people. Soldiers who are 18, 19 or 20 years old are being sent to war while the decision makers sit comfortably at home. I am totally against war unless it is proven inevitable. In this case, it was not proven inevitable. The people who decide on war should not sleep calmly at night.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member for Lac-Saint-Louis state his position, which I understand and respect.

A Liberal member said that under no circumstances should Canada go to war, especially without a UN resolution, although there is some debate as to whether resolution 1441 covers that. This relates to what the member just talked about as well.

We must remember that in 1999 Canada was part of the coalition that went into the former Yugoslavia and took out Milosevic and his regime. The reason given for that was because of human rights. Iraq had its own series of human rights abuses with the Kurds in northern Iraq some 10 years ago. Tens of thousands of Kurds were gassed at that time.

Was the Liberal government wrong to go into Serbia and remove Milosevic under this member's criteria?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, there were two very significant differences between the intervention in 1999 in Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia and the intervention in Iraq today. Active genocide was going on in that region at that time. The action was backed by a global coalition which was uncontested with the exception of Russia

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

No UN resolution.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That is correct. There was global support, with the exception of Russia, to stop the genocide.

This time millions have been demonstrating. I took part in three marches myself, as did you, Madam Speaker. In Montreal alone there were 200,000 people in the street. Millions around the world have been protesting this war. In Spain, which is part of the coalition, 95% of its people are against the government. In Italy, millions have turned out. Millions have turned out in Britain in protest to this war. All around the world people are saying that the coalition should have not gone into it. I am very proud that the government took the stand it did.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member knows that I have a great deal of respect for him, but I am forced to ask this question. Since when is the life of a Kurd less important than the life of a Serbian? I do not understand his thought process at all. He says that in the Balkans it was a just war for us to have engaged in because there were acts of genocide going on.

We know that there has been genocide going on in Iraq. I do not really understand his thought process at all, where he is fundamentally saying that the life of a Kurd is not worth as much as the life of a Serbian.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is playing with facts. The fact is that the last gulf war took place in 1991. All the terrible atrocities against the Kurds, which all of us here denounce, took place in 1992. This stretch of time between the gulf war and today and the United Nations' many resolutions took 12 years. All this time, the nations of the western world, the nations that form the Security Council, tacitly accepted this thing by not doing anything all these years.

I must say that I praise the United States and I praise Great Britain for putting pressure on Saddam Hussein to disarm. At the time the war was declared, there was no active genocide going on. In fact, the regime was more feeble than it ever was. Disarmament was happening. The circumstances were totally different from the circumstances in the Balkans in 1999.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I also would like to rise and challenge the position that the member has taken. Basically he said there is not active genocide taking place in Iraq. I would ask the hon. member, what do 5,000 civilian casualties a month, civilians killed by their own government, count as? There is the brutality of prisons established specifically to rape women, prisons established to torture those people who worked against the regime, and the gassing of ethnic minorities. What is his definition of genocide if those kinds of things do not fit into that definition?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, we can play with all these facts. I think we could point to Zimbabwe, where 6 million people are about to die of famine. We could point to the Congo. We could point to all parts of the world. We could point to North Korea. We could point to Myanmar.

The fact is that global opinion counts for a heck of a lot. Global opinion in the time of the Balkans was unified, except for Russia, that action should take place. This time it has been exactly the other way. People are saying that disarmament was working, that there was a process going on which, overwhelmingly, by the people in the Security Council, in the United Nations at large, and in the global community, was backed 100%.

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

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's statement in the House this morning made eminently clear once again the principles underlying the government's decision not to join the coalition in the war in Iraq, not to participate in the military intervention.

We worked through the United Nations to achieve the goals we share with our friends and allies. Those goals were also very clear, as the Prime Minister mentioned this morning: to disarm Saddam Hussein; to strengthen the international rule of law and human rights; and, equally important, to work toward enduring peace in the region.

Canada worked very hard to achieve a consensus in the Security Council and we were disappointed indeed when that consensus could not, despite all best efforts by ourselves and other allies, be achieved. We argued that a multilateral approach through the United Nations was the necessary approach to enhance the international legitimacy of our military action. In addition, the multilateral approach would make the post-war aftermath easier to resolve.

As the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and others on this side of the House have said, that decision, this decision and the one we had to take, was not an easy one. It would have been easier to agree with close friends.

The reference has been made to our being family in North America, and indeed we are. Like many in this House, I had great-aunts and great-uncles in Boston, which was typical of the Irish immigration that settled in both Nova Scotia and the New England states. I am one of many in this regard.

But even family members do not always agree. One must adhere to the principles integral to our view of a rules based system of international affairs. The course of action we chose must personify the values of this country and the people of Canada, and our strong commitment to the multilateral approach to the resolution of global problems has formed the underpinnings of our foreign policy for many decades.

In the face of global terrorism, it becomes all the more vital as the sole method by which peace loving nations can develop the strategies requisite to defeat those who would destroy democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights for which we all stand.

While we chose a different path, I was, like so many of my colleagues, extremely uncomfortable with the comments of a few. They were injudicious, to say the very least, and they did not, nor do they, reflect the views of this House. Nor do they reflect the opinions of this government.

The opposition's desire to continue to beat this dead horse is generating the media coverage they want and sending the very wrong impression that the views of a couple of members are prevalent throughout. The very opposite is the truth, but for the entire government to apologize, which is the opposition's suggestion, would mean, in the words of a wise pundit, that the sensible are carrying the can for the silly.

If I can move from the ridiculous to the sublime, the question of reconstruction in post-war Iraq, which the Prime Minister addressed this morning, is critical. Canada is working now with the United States and the United Kingdom as well as the United Nations and other multilateral organizations to plan at this moment how to help the Iraqi people after the war ends. We agree with Prime Minister Blair, as the Prime Minister noted, that the United Nations has to be closely involved in the reconstruction, but of course the United Nations cannot do it alone.

Canada is ready now to participate and has the expertise to do so. We have been involved in ongoing relations between government departments in matters of policing and building infrastructure. We have done this in peacetime. It has given us an expertise which is frequently reached for by other countries. We are very comfortable with moving forward in the aftermath of a military intervention such as the one we will face.

Just at the end of his speech, one that made me very proud as a backbencher, the Prime Minister mentioned the values that we share in Canada and he said that when those values are shared across the world it will bring us to a level of understanding of the differences in races, colours and religions that right now is not the status quo. Because we have the ability to do that, we will be able to export our ability to share our differences and to do so in multilateral settings. While we Canadians are always renowned for our humility and not at any time for being aggressive in attempting to export our values, I still think his touching on that this morning was very important, because those values of tolerance and living with differences are exactly what will be required as we move forward into post-war Iraq.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mercier.

I must say that I am happy with the position taken by the Bloc Quebecois on this issue, because there were some very long debates among my colleagues. I think that our party's position has been consistent from the beginning to the end, because it is based, I believe, on fundamental values. Obviously, if we had focused on economic values, on political values and on values that reflect our status as a neighbour to our American friends, we would probably not have come up with our current position.

However, since the beginning of this debate, the Bloc Quebecois has based its position on the fundamental values of friendship and, more importantly, respect for international law because that is very important to us. In fact, when individuals or when a society is allowed to flout international law, anything goes. What governs then is the law of the strongest, the best armed.

And so I commend my party. Since the outset, we have focussed more on fundamental values. That is why we are able to remain consistent when it comes to our position in this type of debate.

There are five parts to the motion before us. Last week we analyzed the Canadian Alliance's motion the same way. We have to look at all the parts and see where we stand on the whole motion.

The purpose of the first part is to reaffirm the vote of March 20. Let us say in passing, to everyone listening, that it was through the work of the Bloc Quebecois that we were able to have such a vote in the House. The government did not wish to let the people's elected representatives speak. The Bloc Quebecois made use of the opportunity provided by one of its opposition days to make sure that the important issue of whether or not to go to war was voted on.

Of course, the war had already begun, the ships were already on their way, the airplanes were probably patrolling close to Iraqi skies and relaying information to the ground. There were Canadian soldiers on board. But the important thing for us was that the people's representatives had their say on the issue. This is pointed out in the motion presented today by the Liberal Party, but we must still render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. It was the Bloc Quebecois that forced a vote in the House, and we are very proud of that.

The second part speaks of friendship. Those who follow their friends everywhere are often scorned. On this topic, the Bloc Quebecois has also been consistent since the beginning. We have always maintained that just because we have a friend who jumps off a bridge, we do not have to jump off with him. Instead, we should warn our friend and tell him that it is dangerous to jump off bridges and that there could be very serious consequences for him and his family. That would be the international community, to maintain the analogy.

That is why, since the beginning, we have tried to tell the Canadian and American governments not to go to Iraq. There are many reasons, including resolution 1441, the purpose of which was to disarm the Iraqi regime. Its purpose was not to change the regime, take control or start a war, but to disarm Iraq through a system of inspections. We were in favour of that from the start. It is not surprising that, once hostilities began, the Bloc Quebecois said it did not agree.

We thought we could achieve our goal, to bring down the regime and put across the need for complete disarmament, through weapons inspections rather than military intervention. We told our American friends we thought they were going about it the wrong way. As we see the images on TV, we are beginning to understand that civilians are the primary victims of this war. I think the Americans made a mistake, and we will keep telling them so. As far as we are concerned, the earlier this war is over the better.

We have a problem with the mention of pride. Again, it is a matter of consistency. How can the Liberal federal government say that we will not be participating in this war, while at the same time sending or maintaining soldiers in theatre in Iraq?

This shows great hypocrisy. This is something we have been condemning all along. We have always maintained that Canadian military personnel and materiel ought to be withdrawn, if indeed we are not participating in the war.

In addition, the reason for not wanting to participate is that the UN did not give its approval. How can the government tell us today that there are only 30 soldiers? The number does not matter. Whether there are 1, 30, 300 or 3,000 soldiers, the fact remains that they are currently participating in a military conflict in Iraq, alongside the Americans, the British and the Australians.

There is therefore an inconsistency in the government's position. Having remained consistent all along, we have no problem condemning the government for its lack of consistency.

It is not too late to recall our military personnel. Our questions for the past month have been about that. From the moment that, in response to a question we had put to him in the House, the Prime Minister said we would not be participating in the war because it was not under the UN umbrella, it became unjustifiable to have Canadian soldiers on the front line, in the Iraq theatre of operations. This is a shocking contradiction.

The fourth part of the motion expresses the hope that the forces accomplish their mission as quickly as possible. It so happens that the Canadian soldiers are currently under the command of the British, Australians or Americans, and that the American, British or Australian mission is to change the regime. The purpose of resolution 1441 was to disarm Iraq, not to change the regime.

Today, the fact that Canadian soldiers are implicated in a regime change in Iraq while on a mission is extremely dangerous. The Prime Minister was again clear on this matter. He said that if this were allowed, from now on, it would be impossible to prevent other regime changes.

Iraq, therefore, represents a first step. If the Americans are unhappy with the regime in Syria or Lebanon, they could change it, in violation of international law. Dangerous precedents are being set. It is not just the Americans, the Australians and the British who are doing it, but Canadians are also taking part in this kind of mission.

The fourth part of the motion is, therefore, inconsistent on two levels.

As to the importance of self restraint on the part of all members in their comments, I would like to remind the House that it is not the Bloc Quebecois that started this controversy. The government's reaction is, once again, quite hypocritical. If the government did not agree with what its members were saying, why did it not sanction them? Why did it not tell them that this is not the government's position?

They should have been told that this is not the government's position and have been asked to apologize and withdraw their comments. The government's reaction, however, was rather weak. Today, there is a resolution before the House in which self restraint is urged, which is very weak, in our opinion.

Finally, the motion addresses the issue of reconstruction. We are witnessing the systematic destruction of Iraq with all the material and civilian losses that this involves. Now, we are being told that Iraq must be rebuilt.

I agree, but the UN, whose authority was undermined by this intervention, must be restored to its former role. There is no mention of this in the resolution. The Bloc Quebecois believes it is important to do this, and if he did so, the Prime Minister's positions would be consistent.

The Prime Minister justified not intervening in Iraq because the decision was not multilateral. Today, he should say the same thing with regard to the reconstruction of Iraq. We cannot ask the Americans and the British to destroy and then rebuild Iraq on their own.

With what type of government and resources should this be done? The international community's participation is essential, and the motion makes no mention of this.

You will understand then, based on what I said in the introduction of my speech, when I said that since the beginning, the Bloc Quebecois has been very consistent throughout this debate, that we cannot support this motion. This applies mostly to the third part, which congratulates our soldiers in Iraq, when they should not be there.

As for the reconstruction of Iraq, it says that we want to take part, but it does not mention that it must be done under the UN. The law of the jungle has got to come to an end now. We thought that this was over now, that might no longer makes right. Then the hostilities broke out.

What we want now, is for the UN to regain its credibility. A first mistake has been made, and we must correct it and proceed with reconstruction under the lead of the UN. It has to be the entire international community that takes part in this reconstruction. This community was excluded from the disarmament process, now it must be involved again to try to clean up the terrible mess that has been made in Iraq and among Iraqi civilian.

The reconstruction of Iraq is also a physical issue, because so much has been destroyed. If we want the people of Iraq to pull themselves together again, the UN must be involved. Power must be returned to the people of Iraq and we must help them rebuild their country. That will have to be done with the help of the international community.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wish to put a question to my Bloc colleague. We serve together on the Standing Committee of National Defence and Veterans Affairs and have participated in many debates on military matters before.

Would the member like to comment, extensively if he might, on the Liberal position? He made a couple of points in his speech to which I would like to allude. He stated that the Prime Minister said we would not participate. Indeed, we took a vote to that effect.

My hon. colleague mentioned that it was a contradiction and hypocritical. We have a government that in part 3 of the resolution is congratulating those armed forces personnel, some 32 that we have in Iraq, when they should not even be there according to the government's own vote.

I propose a slightly more detailed question regarding the Geneva convention. We have Canadian troops in Canadian uniforms serving in combat in Iraq. The government has given full permission and not ended the exchange with the U.S. forces. The government has not actually said that these troops are in combat and as a result has put them in a strange situation.

Does he think it is unfair to our forces who are serving there on exchange, that they may be outside the Geneva convention and not covered by it. What does my Bloc colleague think about the government's hypocrisy and what it does to our troops in the sense of not being covered by the Geneva convention?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this question from my colleague, considering his great knowledge of military strategy. I would, moreover, remind him that the Bloc Quebecois has raised this a number of times in the House during oral questions. What would happen to a Canadian soldier who was taken prisoner? How would he be defended?

I must admit that the government's answers on this are pretty vague. We have trouble understanding who will defend our soldiers. Will it be Canada? The Canadian Red Cross? Who will defend the war prisoner? Will it be the command under which he is currently operating, instead?

This also raises the matter of who is in command, who is in control. This is important in combat units. We are told that they are under British, Australian or American command. But under whose control?

If Canadian soldiers are asked to lay mines, can they do so? If the American commander says, “We are spending the night here and we will mine the perimeters of the camp”, and there are Canadian soldiers in the combat unit, are they going to lay the mines? They are under American command, but can they call their Canadian control and ask whether they can do this? These are all things that remain very vague at this time.

The same thing goes for the rules of engagement, about which we are merely being told that Canadian soldiers will be able to respond in legitimate self-defence. But what is that? If a Canadian is beside an American who is being shot at, can he defend himself? Or is he going to say, “They were not shooting at me, so I cannot shoot back”? This is all very confusing.

My colleague is right to raise the matter of the government's inconsistency in connection with the Geneva convention, the rules of engagement, command and control. These are all matters on which a great deal of confusion remains, unfortunately.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend, with whom we fully agree in regard to this unjustified war, how he views the post-war period? Does he see a prominent role for the United Nations? What should this role be? Is it only in reconstruction or does it also involve reconciliation with all the countries in the Middle East?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. I did have the chance to touch lightly on this subject in my comments on the fifth part of the motion. I will say a little more about it, since the hon. member has asked this question.

I see the reconstruction taking place under the UN umbrella. As I said in my speech, it is important to make the UN a respectable institution once more, and this is up to the international community, since it draws on many visions and values. With the help of the international community, it will be possible to move forward not only to reconstruction but also to reconciliation, as my hon. friend has said.

In fact, this war has broken many bonds of friendship, as much for the Americans as for the Iraqis and the Arab countries. Therefore, it is important, while proceeding with the reconstruction and reconciliation, that there is not just one system of values brought into play. The entire international community must help to reconstruct Iraq and to reconcile that nation with the rest of the planet.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to speak on this motion, to say that we wish we could have supported it, but have no choice but to oppose it for many reasons, which we have been outlining since the debate started and which I want to review.

The first part of the motion refers to the substantial sense of the House, voted on March 20, in support of the government's decision not to participate in the military intervention in Iraq. It is odd that the government would recognize—that is what it is doing—that, as a result of an opposition day of the Bloc Quebecois, whose motion was votable for once, this House had the opportunity to set out its position on the military intervention in Iraq.

Incidentally, it makes no sense that the government itself did not call on Parliament to express its support for or disagreement with the sending of troops to combat, because that is what it was all about.

Parliament said no. The government made a proposal, albeit at the last moment, not to support this war in Iraq. The very day the Prime Minister made his statement, I reviewed all statements made in this connection. Clearly, the whole time, the Prime Minister had left the door open to going either way.

He talked very eloquently today of the need to make this decision based on principles. I agree with this. However, the fact is that numerous times in this House the Prime Minister agreed with the fact that resolution 1441 paved the way for serious consequences. He told the House that this did not mean just a little parade, but war.

The Prime Minister recognized what few countries and very few experts recognized, which is that, in itself, resolution 1441 allowed the United States, for example, to go to war against Iraq.

When he said, “No, Canada will not support it, because this war seeks a regime change”, I heartily applauded him. He said, “No, Canada will not support it”. However, this question of regime change has not only been around for a few days or since the Prime Minister's visit to Mexico. It has been around, for those who follow current events, for a very long time.

Of course, the Security Council did not talk about a regime change because this is not permitted under international law. So, yes, we appreciated it when the Prime Minister said that Canada would not be taking part in this war. However, it must be said that, until the last second, he could have gone either way.

We cannot help but think of such things as the very large demonstrations that took place in Quebec City and Montreal. There has never been such a large one in Montreal except at the time of the failure of Meech Lake. That takes us back, but other than that one there has never been such an outpouring of public opinion.

No doubt the Prime Minister has also taken the time to see where public opinion was headed. We cannot forget that an election campaign was going on in Quebec. We know that the highest percentage of people opposed to the war in Iraq and the situation in Iraq was in Quebec.

The Prime Minister goes on in his second point to refer to the:

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

Of course we share this sentiment. It is important to remind the Americans that what we are opposed to is the decision taken by the American administration. It is important to differentiate between the two. All colleagues must differentiate between the American people and the American administration.

In this connection, I would like to add one thing. Quebeckers and all Canadians are strongly in support of the war against terrorism, which is why they have grave doubts about the effectiveness of this war the U.S. administration has decided to wage on Iraq. Who can believe that the world is safer today than it would have been if we had continued the peaceful disarmament the UN and the UN inspectors were facilitating? Who can say that we, or the Americans, are any safer today?

The images that we are seeing—and especially those that we are not seeing, but that we will learn about in the coming weeks and months—will fuel the anger and the desire to exact vengeance felt by so many young and not so young Arab people, Muslim Arabs who will want to exact vengeance.

This is an extremely important issue. We have said it before; nothing justifies terrorism; however, it cannot be said that nothing fuels it. We believe—and no one can take away the legitimacy of this belief—that the war in Iraq will poison the region and serve to fan the flames of terrorism.

The motion refers to, and I quote:

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

Obviously, these soldiers are in our thoughts. However, we cannot help but be concerned when the Prime Minister says that our troops cannot be sent into combat based on principle, when 31 people, maybe more, are in combat, even though the Prime Minister has said that it is an unjustified conflict. How are we supposed to reconcile these two ideas?

In closing, I would like to say that the reconstruction of Iraq must be carried out under the UN banner for the reasons I have just mentioned. It is important to show that what we are working for is justice for the people of Iraq and not profits for some state. We must not impose a model that would not come from the people of Iraq themselves.

We have seen in Afghanistan that democracy cannot be imposed, because combatants are taking up arms again, which can be dangerous. Kabul is not even close to being safe; only certain neighbourhoods are. The human rights, freedom and justice that we would like to see prevail are only just starting to take hold.