Bill Graham

[Iraq, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member and all the members of this House fully understand that there is a high risk of a war if Saddam Hussein feels that he does not have to comply with resolution 1441.

The process to which Canada is committed is twofold. First, we want to tell Saddam Hussein that he absolutely must comply with his international obligations. Second, we want to give the inspectors a chance to complete their mission, so as to avoid a war. The only way to avoid a war is to take these two aspects into consideration.

[Iraq, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the process Canada is engaged in has two objectives. First, to indicate to Saddam Hussein that this cannot go on indefinitely and that he absolutely must comply with his obligations under resolution 1441. Second, to encourage all other members of the international community to remain within the UN system, which acts in the interests of security and in the interests of the international community. That is our process, that is our message. It has never changed, and we will continue our work in that area.

[Iraq, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's position is still the Prime Minister's position, and I have always followed his lead in this process by supporting the UN process, the inspectors and the ongoing inspection. We are continuing our work, which is to discuss with our counterparts, at his level and mine, to enhance clarity in support of Dr. Blix's process. I am confident that the Security Council will find a way to achieve that within the next few days.

[Iraq, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister was in Chicago last week. He received a standing ovation from the Americans in the audience when he told them that we were their ally because we came to them with our independent appreciation of this. He said clearly that we wanted them and the world to work through the United Nations system. I can certainly give the assurance to the hon. member that we are not accepting what the United States proposes on a timeline or anything else.

What we are seeking to do is create the conditions which would allow peace to prevail and we will continue to do that under all circumstances.

[Iraq, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our position has always been to work within the United Nations system.

One thing we can all take a great deal of comfort and pride in is that the weapons inspectors, mandated by the Security Council, have done serious work and have created credibility around the UN system. Canada totally supports the weapons inspectors. In fact Mr. Heinbecker saw Dr. Blix this morning. We are in continual contact with Dr. Blix. I have spoken to him on a regular basis.

I want to assure the House and all members that we work with the weapons inspectors to ensure that the inspection system works.

[Iraq, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that there are two aspects to this crisis: the Iraqi one and the American one.

We must therefore consider both aspects. Iraq has to realize that it has obligations and that these obligations must be fulfilled within a reasonable timeframe.

Canada has not set a date. Canada has not required anything from anyone. We have simply made an observation that is logical to everyone. There is a need to know the terms and by when these must be met. That is what we have said—

[Iraq, February 20th, 2003]

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. I think it is very important that the House, the hon. members and the Canadian public know that our contribution here is to avert war by clarifying the situation. If we remain in the dark, war could break out against the wishes of the international community.

With clarification, we have a chance of finding a way out. That is what Canada wants; that is what it is promoting. I am proud of the contribution we have been able to make in this respect.

[Iraq, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a misunderstanding here. Canada did not propose a deadline. On the contrary, we made it clear that we would not propose a specific date. We told the Security Council, “You are in charge. Therefore, you set a date that takes into account the requirements for peace and the obligation for Saddam Hussein to comply”.

This is where we now stand. This is the approach that we will pursue. I believe this is a very positive contribution on the part of Canada.

[Iraq, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the hon. member that time is needed to achieve a peaceful resolution to this conflict.

However, the situation cannot go on indefinitely. Even the French and all the countries that want peace recognize that only by asking Saddam Hussein to do certain specific things within a set timeframe can this issue be settled and a peaceful solution to this crisis be achieved.

This is the contribution made by Canada yesterday, and our position will not change.

[Foreign Affairs, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker,our message remains the same to this House, to Canadians, and to the world: namely that there is a UN process that offers the best hopes of getting through this crisis without a war. Nothing has changed.

That was Mr. Heinbecker's message yesterday before the Security Council, when he told it that we are supporting the Security Council in its attempt to come up with a clear and precise solution that asks Saddam Hussein to comply so that the situation can be resolved peacefully.