Debates of April 8th, 2003

Supply

[Some hon. members]

No.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show that I abstained from voting on this motion. While I could not in good conscience vote against the motion, neither could I support it.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton knows that we do not record abstentions in the House.

Points of Order

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during question period I was challenged by the Minister of National Revenue to produce the documents that attribute her with the comments of referring to customs agents as bank tellers. I have the documents and the articles here and I would like to table them if I have consent.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to permit the hon. member to table the documents?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. Apparently there is no consent.

We will hear the Minister of National Revenue.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, nowhere in any of those articles does it use the words “glorified bank tellers”. Neither does it attribute to me that comment, other than the security concerns that we have about customs officers not placing themselves in any kind of jeopardy.

[The Speaker]

I would suggest that the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona and the minister sit down and discuss the terms on which these things can be tabled and then come back to the House when the terms have been settled.

I think to get into debate on that on the floor would be pointless and indeed perhaps disruptive to order in the House.

The hon. chief opposition whip.

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton--Strathcona has asked permission of this House to table a document and I did not hear whether you had said that he had consent or he did not.

[The Speaker]

I understood he did not. The minister indicated in her point of order that she would consent under conditions. I suggested that the two meet to discuss the conditions and settle them rather than continue to debate them on the floor of the House because there was a fear that it was causing disorder, and we cannot have that.

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

Mr. Speaker, in relation to a ruling you made today on the question asked by the member for South Shore, I respectfully ask that if you review the blues you may find that there was a question and that it might be in order.

[The Speaker]

I want to say to the hon. member for St. John's West that I received a note from one of his distinguished colleagues on this point. I have directed that a review of the blues be undertaken. I hope to be in a position to let the hon. member know in due course should I have made a blunder in the course of question period in my ruling. I will look into the matter. I thank him for drawing this to my attention.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Because of the deferred recorded division government orders will be extended by 22 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Situation in Iraq

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo.

At this challenging time of terrorism and war, we as Canadians are examining our principles and our relationship to the United States and to the world. It is important that we avoid simplistic notions of for or against, all right and all wrong, and once and for all. The issues are complex, the context shifts and global relationships are increasingly interdependent. Absolute positions can bring short term confidence, but they are brittle and confine us over time.

Canadians and Americans relate closely to each other on multiple levels: family, community, culture, economy, environment and security. Yet we often differ on attitudes to health care, gun control and capital punishment. Internationally, we have parted company on treaties relating to landmines, children's rights, climate change, war crimes tribunals and, most recently, the timing and conditions on action to disarm Iraq; not whether to disarm, but when and how.

The Canadian government decided that the invasion of Iraq was premature, the case of weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaeda not convincingly made, the requisite international support not assembled, the last resort of war not yet reached. Our attempt to build Security Council consensus through a further resolution with clear benchmarks, a set deadline, and the explicit consequences of armed invasion was unsuccessful. That the U.S. government came, on balance, to a different conclusion, does not affect our friendship but rather demonstrates our independence of thought and action.

Neither Canadians nor Americans are unanimous in their opinions. Some of America's most respected political thinkers agree with the Canadian decision: historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Joseph Nye, the dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, for instance. Not having agreed with the invasion of Iraq at this time is not anti-American. However we must guard against our internal political debate becoming anti-Canadian.

Canada will continue to support a multilateral approach to complex global issues. This is consistent with our modern history and our mediation role that is respected internationally. Immediately for Iraq it means encouraging a UN mandate for humanitarian relief and reconstruction, and a Security Council resolution to establish an ad hoc war crimes tribunal to try Saddam Hussein and his barbarous regime.

More broadly, it requires fine tuning of Canadian foreign policy to closely align our diplomatic, defence, development and trade initiatives. Canada is a trusted international facilitator of dispute resolution. We are the acknowledged expert in peacekeeping. We are a respected contributor to humanitarian relief and development. We also are successful global traders. This is a unique set of attributes. Budgets are being increased and mandates reviewed. We must integrate our policies for optimum effect.

We know that the security, prosperity and quality of life of Canadians are enhanced by the increased opportunities of those in other parts of the world. Coordinating our defence and peace initiatives with our aid to civilian populations caught in conflict, linking trade agreements to human rights, environmental and demographic guarantees, and offering our “good offices” to mediate conflicts together present a coherent, positive internationalist agenda.

Let us stand together in the House, of all places, for these proud traditions and future leadership.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised to hear that speech coming from a minister because I thought normally ministerial speeches were fact checked, were a little better informed.

He said, for instance, that the case about weapons of mass destruction had not been made. I infer from that, that he means the presence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Has he not read resolution 1441 where all 15 members of the UN Security Council agreed unanimously that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations to disarm and that 1441 asserted, with unanimous agreement, the continued illegal presence of weapons of mass destruction? Exactly what case had not been made, given that the case for Iraq's continued illegal possession of these weapons was unanimously concurred in by all members of the Security Council?

The member also said that he supports the creation of an ad hoc UN tribunal to try Saddam Hussein. I am glad to hear that since I have been pressing for that motion for five years. However he also said that he supports multilateralism. Is he not aware that two of the permanent members, France and Russia, have consistently threatened to exercise a veto to block the creation of an international ad hoc tribunal to try Saddam Hussein and his colleagues for crimes against humanity, and according to Human Rights Watch, because of their extensive commercial interests in Iraq?

If he is unwilling to see Canada support military action because of its threatened veto on the enforcement of 1441, then why is he prepared to support the creation of an international tribunal, notwithstanding a threatened veto from the very same countries?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mixes up two important issues. The first one has to do with the inspections that were being undertaken under the leadership of Hans Blix to determine whether the disarmament order was or had been complied with. The other issue has to do with bringing the leader and his co-conspirators of this odious regime before a court of law to be tried for war crimes.

The inspection of course was underway. It was making progress. Inspector Hans Blix was reporting out on a regular basis to the United Nations Security Council. The serious consequences in 1441 had not yet been determined to have been required because the inspection was not finished.

The Canadian role was quite straightforward. As a matter of fact, the week before war was declared, the lead editorial in the Los Angeles Times supported by name the Canadian attempt to have a set deadline, clear benchmarks and the serious consequences spelled out in a further resolution. That was all underway and it was supported by many people. That was simply the timing that we felt should be set explicitly.

With respect to the war crimes tribunal, this is a matter of setting up an appropriate tribunal to try someone for serious crimes against humanity in a court of law, in accordance with rules of evidence and rights of accused, but in public before the whole world to ensure that justice is done and the many victims of this odious regime see some satisfaction through those criminals being brought to trial. That is something quite separate from the inspection regime that was underway, was working and Canada, in its wisdom and in its friendship with the United States, the friendship of positive criticism and advice, suggested that we go to a further resolution.

Unfortunately that was not followed but here we are together wishing our friends and allies, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, Godspeed in their efforts in Iraq.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister either misunderstood my question or deliberately evaded it. Let me make it clear.

Canada did not support the current military action because of a threatened French and Russian veto on the enforcement of 1441, but France and Russia have three times threatened a veto against the creation of an international tribunal to prosecute Saddam through the UN Security Council.

Why is their veto sufficient to block our desire of enforcement in one case but he still supports the creation of a international tribunal, notwithstanding France and Russia's veto? This is a critical issue about the functionality of international institutions which he claims to champion.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member confuses it again. Canada is not a member of the Security Council at this time. We are attempting, through our good offices, to encourage the members of the Security Council to put forward and support such a resolution.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, the decision not to get involved in the invasion of Iraq was a principled one that I support. We have been consistent in saying that Canadian involvement in a military action against Iraq could only take place as part of a multilateral force authorized by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. This view is echoed in e-mails, letters and phone calls I have received from my constituents, and the resolution passed by the council of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

I am a strong supporter of our armed forces but decisions regarding what actions they take are ours to make. While I support the role that Canada is playing in the war on terrorism and understand the purpose of our military presence in the Persian gulf, I would have been happier if we were consistent and had no military personnel in the war zone.

I am disappointed with the Alliance, which very much like its neo-conservative American colleagues, supports this war. Its criticism of the government's position in a democratic debate in the House of Commons exceeds any criticism made against the war. Further, if Alliance members truly were concerned that critical comments could hurt Canada, they would not magnify that criticism. War with its heavy casualties, mostly of innocent civilians, evokes strong emotions. When innocent civilians are dying, we should be having a heated debate.

No one has any illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal dictator whose actions have kept his people in a state of terror, brought financial ruin and inflicted great suffering of his people and neighbouring countries. However much as I would like to see him ousted, I do not believe that this war at this time has a legal basis in international law. It also sets a dangerous precedent that other antagonistic countries that fear each other, such as Pakistan and India, might use to justify a pre-emptive action of their own with potentially catastrophic consequences for the whole world.

Only a UN resolution could sanction this action. It is unseemly that rather than waiting a few more weeks while Iraq was destroying rockets that have a range exceeding 100 miles, under the supervision of the United Nations weapons inspectors in accordance with the terms of UN resolution 1441, the U.S. and Britain chose to bypass the UN and launch a unilateral attack against Iraq.

The majority of UN members supported more time for weapons inspectors. As former President Jimmy Carter recently said in the New York Times :

The war can only be waged as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is clear that alternatives to war exist.

Canada places great value in the United Nations and other international organizations. I am disappointed that the U.S. administration does not share this view and this is reflected in it not supporting initiatives such as the Kyoto accord, the international landmines treaty and the World Court. These are the proper venues for achieving a safe and peaceful world.

This war threatens to diminish these institutions. Under the leadership of President Bush, the U.S. government has come to believe that it is acting from a place of highest moral authority, without UN Security Council approval and ignoring the checks and balances that international institutions provide. They are leading us into a new world order dominated by a Pax Americana. They believe that America has the God-given right to be the lawmaker, judge and enforcer of world order.

The philosophy of the Bush doctrine was spawned by a group of neo-conservatives in Washington led by Richard Perle. In practice it extends the principles of the Munroe doctrine for U.S. hegemony in the western hemisphere to the whole world. The arrogance of the claim to have the right to unilaterally meddle in the internal affairs of sovereign countries is simply astounding.

I quote U.S. Senator Robert Byrd, the dean of the U.S. Congress, who said:

--today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

The signatories of the U.S. declaration of independence who founded a nation based on the principles of justice and freedom for all citizens would be turning in their graves to see how these principles have been taken hostage.

The U.S. has propped up dictatorial and corrupt regimes in Panama, Guatemala, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam and elsewhere. It has supported armed opposition groups like the Contras in Nicaragua and the Taliban in Afghanistan, caring neither about the political stripe nor the objectives of their allies, as long as they served American interests at that time.

America has been complicit in the overthrow of legitimately elected democratic governments such as Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973 and Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 that was replaced by the Shah resulting in the Ayatollah Khoumeni.

The flavour of the week is the eviction of Saddam Hussein. Who will be next? The message America is sending to the world is summed up very well by John Brady Kiesling, a career U.S. diplomat, in his recent letter of resignation to Colin Powell. He said:

When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

I understand the fears of some of my constituents who have written, urging that Canada should not upset Americans or we will suffer economic consequences. To them I say that we are not powerless in our economic relationship with the United States. We are their largest trading partner and their largest supplier of energy. In my community we export a great deal of information technology. They buy from us because it serves both our interests. It is important to remember that while we are interdependent economically, we are independent politically.

This war is causing much death and destruction to the people of Iraq. I regret the thousands of casualties. I regret the use of cluster bombs. I regret the threat to use technical nuclear weapons, the ultimate weapons of mass destruction. I regret the fact that the U.S. propaganda machine blames the Iraqis for casualties that the U.S. has caused.

This war is being watched close up as no other conflict before. Muslims, Arabs and people from other cultures, races and religions all around the world have a front row seat. They see America as an aggressor, fighting an antiseptic high tech war from 50,000 feet without concern for the horrific impact on a helpless Muslim civilian population. I fear for the consequences of this action.

I do not want a world where we will be forced to adopt the Israeli lifestyle, where people fear to take the bus or go for a walk with their family. Israel, the military superpower in the Middle East, is caught in a Catch-22 where it has tied its military might and where its military might is undermining the peace that could give it security.

This is where the U.S. policy is leading us, to a world full of Oklahoma style bombings, sniper attacks, anthrax scares and terrorist reprisals, a world where we must sacrifice our rights and freedoms for security.

It is important to remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, “those who give up freedom for security deserve neither security or freedom.”

Also the words of George Washington, who said, “eternal vigilance is the price we pay for freedom.”

I weep for this world. I weep for all the innocent children, Jewish, Christian and Muslim, whose tragic death is equally painful to their parents.

We live on a fragile planet, in a global village. Events such as the ecological disasters of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl that occur in one place resonates throughout.

This war is a setback. We must redouble our efforts in strengthening those international institutions that provide the venues we need to meet these objectives.

Canada has taken the lead in working toward a new world order, where all nations are subject to the rule of international law, all nations give up their weapons of mass destruction and all nations work together for peace; a world order where multilateralism and not unilateralism is the norm.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to know where to begin. Let me address something that the hon. member was suggesting about unilateralism versus multilateralism.

Will the member across the way acknowledge that the United Nations hardly has a sterling record when it comes to solving the world's ills? The United Nations was paralyzed on Rwanda. It would not move on Kosovo because of the threatened veto from Russia. Rather clearly it had to be the United States who led a coalition into Kosovo.

Would the member acknowledge that because the United Nations has been paralyzed on the issue of Iraq for 12 years, there have been thousands upon thousands of needless deaths in that country of innocent Kurds, innocent Shia? Because the United Nations would not do its job, thousands of innocent people died. Now someone is stepping in to clean up that mess.

Will the member acknowledge that at the very least this regime change, being undertaken now by the United States, the U.K. and Australia, is a good thing, a positive thing that was not happening with the United Nations?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me answer the questions the member has raised. First, I will deal with Kosovo. Kosovo was a regional conflict which fell under the auspices of NATO. The difference between Kosovo and Iraq is this. Ethnic cleansing was taking place in Kosovo.

As much as I supported us going into Kosovo under NATO, I was horrified to see the low value placed on civilian lives. As the House will recall, the war was fought from 50,000 feet high. We had needless slaughter of innocent civilians.

In terms of the UN not doing its job, the United Nations belongs to us all. The United Nations is supposed to get the civilized world acting together. That is the best hope we have for civilization on this planet.

We cannot take a situation where a former colonial power has used chemical weapons in Iraq, and that is England, goes back there tries to say that it is part of a force of liberation. The fact of the matter is, and we all saw it on television, the UN weapons inspectors were destroying missiles that had a range greater than 100 miles. They were being destroyed and then came the war.

The fact is the inspections were working, weapons were being destroyed and the world community was coming together. If there needed to be this action of going to war against Iraq, it would have been done under the auspices of the United Nations. That is a very important difference; the umbrella of the UN versus unilateralism.