Bill Graham

[Iraq, February 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I said that the principles are the same. It is a matter of knowing just how, and by which dates things must be done. That is the current crisis. Some want things done immediately, others say that we need to give inspectors more time.

Our proposal gives a reasonable time for inspections to be done in order to keep the Security Council united on this issue. That is why Mexico and Chile are so interested in our proposal. We will continue to work for peace with similar countries.

[Iraq, February 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we proposed, a specific timetable, with certain dates and activities for inspectors so that everyone knows exactly what needs to be done.

However, we have to recognize that there are parties other than the German government involved. There are also the Americans, the British and others who are threatening to go to war without the Security Council. We must examine the German proposal, but also what we can do to bring the Security Council together, and that is the purpose of our proposal.

[Iraq, February 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I do not realize that, nor do I support that premise. As we have always said, the best way to avoid war under these circumstances is for Saddam Hussein and Iraq to clearly understand that they need to comply fully with resolution 1441.

We have made our proposal and it has been accepted, in that it has been examined by other members of the Security Council as a way of avoiding the use of force. We continue to work to that end.

[Iraq, February 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out yesterday in the House, the Canadian proposal was, clearly, designed precisely to avoid the need for war. There must be clarity in order to demonstrate to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm by a certain date. A deadline must be set, and the Americans and the others must be kept in the Security Council as well.

I believe our proposal has been well received by the international community. It has therefore made a positive contribution, and we continue with our policy to resolve this matter and get through this crisis without having to resort to force.

[Points of Order, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, during question period yesterday reference was made to a paper which was circulated in New York by the Canadian government and members had shown an interest in having it deposited in the House. I was not in the House this morning to table it during the time for depositing government documents.

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deposit with the House at this time the paper which was circulated in New York. I understand it is also available in the government lobby.

[Iraq, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask members of the party opposite to read the speech delivered recently by the Prime Minister, in Chicago.

The Prime Minister made it clear: “Canada has its own international policy. Canada must follow its own approach. Our approach is to support multilateral institutions. We will continue on that path”. That has always been our approach and we will not change, despite the criticism from the other side of the House.

[Iraq, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the United States has not indicated that it will get involved in Iraq without the approval of the Security Council. This is the issue that is before the Security Council; this is why we are trying to find a way to meet two requirements: to disarm Saddam Hussein and to protect the role of the Security Council and international institutions in the world, which is very important.

This is a task that we are working on with many other states. Today, the Prime Minister is in Mexico. We on this side of the House will continue to do our job to achieve peace and to preserve international institutions.

[Iraq, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in the serious world of diplomacy, it is words like those spoken by the hon. members opposite that fall into the gap, it is their rhetoric which falls flat.

What is needed is serious work, work in support of peace. This is always hard, complicated work, but we will continue this work and our efforts to ensure peace through a compliant multilateral system.

[Iraq, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have always stated in this House, and it is still this government's policy, that Saddam Hussein must disarm under Security Council resolution 1441.

The proposal we have submitted to the Security Council will enable it to find a way to close the gap between the radical French position and that of the Americans. I think that is still a positive contribution. It is being considered by various states to stay on track, to continue supporting peace.

[Iraq, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the premise of the question. What the government was seeking to do was to bridge an important gap in the Security Council. This is a matter which is still under discussion at the Security Council and members from other countries, other than the ones which have been referred to by the hon. member, are discussing the issue.

We are seeking to play a positive and constructive role. I do not think it helps by saying that some people reject. Our point is that we want to bridge the gap. We want to bring the Security Council together. It is a valuable role which we will continue to play.