Bill Graham

[Iraq, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained this morning in committee, the Canadian government has always offered Mr. Blix and the inspectors all the support they want from our country.

I personally spoke with Mr. Blix and we wrote to him. There are Canadian inspectors on the team. We are very proud of the work they are doing for the international community. We continue to support this inspection process with everything in our power.

[Iraq, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained this morning before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, that is precisely what the Security Council is seized of. Mr. Blix is going to Baghdad. What Mr. Colin Powell presented yesterday was extraordinarily well documented. Baghdad has to give answers. Mr. Blix is committed, he will go there and appear again before the Security Council on February 14. At that time we will know if inspections are no longer needed or what decisions need to be made.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we can say that if war was declared today, it would not be legitimate. But it is necessary to follow the process. This is what we have always said, and not one party in this House thinks that war will be declared without the UN process being followed. That is what Colin Powell did yesterday.

He asked that Hans Blix return to Iraq to give that country a chance to respond. The UN chief inspector will return before the Security Council. That is the process. As in any war, if war is declared, and we all hope it can be averted, the process will have to be followed. The process continues. Let us not pass judgment on the legitimacy of the process until it is complete. Let us not be premature. The legitimacy is in the process of Mr. Blix. Let us wait until he returns before the Security Council.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my response to the previous question, the House leader will be speaking to the specific issue on the resolution before the House today and will provide an answer to the hon. member in terms of the government's position.

However, I do not see any inconsistency in insisting that we have the debates in the House to fully clarify what our positions are to enable parties to put forward their positions and enable individual members to share their experience and to discuss these very important issues. We have had very full consideration of that.

The government has been consistent in its approach to these issues. We have consistently engaged the House in more discussions, more debates, and more ability to exchange views. We have tried to change the procedure to enable that and to be more productive. We have tried to ensure that time is allocated to the House to allow debates. That is the consistent policy of the government and we should recognize that.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's remarks and particularly his comments about the process of the engagement in the House.

I quite agree. I found the debate the other night more than constructive. I thought it was an excellent debate. It was an opportunity where we really engaged ourselves. There were differences of opinion, all of which were legitimate, as we tried to figure out what the best course was for our country to take. We understand and the Canadian public understands where we are going.

In that sense, I believe that the process of debating and considering this matter in the House has been a most constructive contribution to understanding the collective will of Canadian people about how to approach this problem.

I will defer to the House leader who will be speaking later in the debate about the procedural requirements and the procedural way in which we will be dealing with this issue.

Therefore, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I hope to be able to bring some contribution to the debate by stating the substantive issues we have before us.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Durham.

The debate today provides us with another opportunity to consider our country's approach to the current crisis in Iraq. I am looking forward to the debate, which will doubtless ensue in the way the previous debates have done, and I think, as the House leader of the official opposition rightly pointed out in his recent comments, has enabled us in the House to debate these issues, to discuss them and to enable the Canadian public to have a better understanding of the very issues that are before us today.

The contributions made by parliamentarians on this issue have been substantial. The government has profited greatly from the discussions in the House, in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, where I was this morning, and in conversations we have all had in recent weeks with individual members.

Today I would like to share with the House the latest development of our country's position following my meeting with Secretary Powell in Washington last week and his report yesterday to the Security Council.

The contribution I can make to this debate, I believe, is to frame our discussion today by touching on some of the substantive issues before us.

In the past few weeks diplomatic efforts, including those of the government, have been intensifying as the international community focuses on the essential issue: the need for Iraq to meet its international obligations by disarming.

Our objective is the complete elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations, including Security Council resolution 1441.

There is no doubt for us that the UN remains the best way to pursue this goal. We will continue to work with our friends and allies to pursue diplomatic efforts in that direction. The government of Iraq must understand the clear message being sent by the international community. The only way for this crisis to be resolved peacefully is for Iraq's full, active and unconditional co-operation with the weapons inspection process. The choice is clearly up to Iraq.

As I indicated to the House last week, the question we have to collectively address here is how we can have Iraq disarm consistent with resolution 1441, and that remains very much still today before the Security Council. I believe there is a need for the international community to speak with one voice at this critical time through the Security Council.

We saw last week that eight member states of the European Union came together to declare their support for strong transatlantic relations and for unity on the question of Iraq. They stated:

The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this [Iraq's disarmament] peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

Their unwavering support for resolution 1441 and the Security Council echoes Canada's efforts over the past few months.

We also place great weight on the importance of relations across the Atlantic and a strong and unified position on Iraq at this time. History shows that when Europe and North America work together we can respond to even the most difficult challenges, including those we face today, whether that is the campaign against terrorism or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, the current reality is that Iraq continues to avoid full compliance with resolution 1441. Dr. Blix made it clear last week in his update to the Security Council that more active co-operation was required by Iraq. Secretary Powell's report to the UN Security Council yesterday made it even more clear that Iraq was not yet fully complying with the inspections process.

Resolution 1441, operative paragraph 4, clearly stipulates:

--failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment....

At this point, time is running out for Iraq and the diplomatic pressure is intensifying.

The Prime Minister and I have been consulting with our allies and partners. During this week alone I have spoken by phone to my colleagues from Spain, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Turkey, Egypt and the European Union. Despite some differences of approach, I can tell the members of the House and assure them that all are agreed on the need for Saddam Hussein to disarm and the need to maintain the international pressure on him to do so. They all support the role of the United Nations in this process.

I indicated to my counterparts that the international community must remain united in maintaining diplomatic pressure on Iraq. I assure members that the government will remain resolutely engaged in this cause.

Parliament plays an important role in our management of this issue. The many debates and discussions that have been held in recent days are testament to the engagement of Parliament and the interest and concern of the Canadian people on this question.

Just this morning I had an excellent meeting regarding Iraq with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The committee raised some very interesting points regarding the process we are in and I look forward today to hearing the views, as do all members of the government, from all sides of the House on this key international question.

As you know, I also had the opportunity to meet with Secretary of State Powell in Washington a week ago. The meeting went very well and I was able to reiterate Canada's position; that this issue must continue to be handled by the United Nations, and that the decisions made by our country would reflect the will of the international community as expressed at the Security Council.

Secretary of State Powell and the United States government understand and respect Canada's position. Friendship and alliance does not mean that two sovereign nations must adopt identical approaches in all cases. In the case of Iraq, we have the same objective, which is the complete and verifiable disarmament of Iraq.

Yesterday at the Security Council, Secretary of State Powell made a compelling presentation showing that Iraq is not complying with resolution 1441. He presented information that only lengthens the list of unanswered questions with regard to Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.

I congratulate Mr. Powell and the U.S. government for bringing forward more information on this matter and presenting the international community with their point of view and the intelligence gathered by their country so that the UN Security Council can make a sound decision.

The next major step in this matter and in this process is the return of Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei to Iraq on February 8 in order to obtain greater cooperation from Iraq. They will submit their report to the Security Council on February 14.

I would like to underscore, once again, the excellent work done by the UN inspectors in this difficult undertaking. They have demonstrated the utmost professionalism in ensuring that Iraq has one last chance to comply. We maintain that if the chief inspectors are asking for more time to do their work, then they must be given more time.

We are proud of the support Canada has given to the inspections and the inspectors. However, additional time will serve no purpose if Iraq does not cooperate fully, actively and sincerely. The situation is very different than it was in the 1990s; Iraq's deception will no longer be tolerated.

There was much debate in the House last week, and there is much discussion now, on the possibility of a second resolution. In fact there is a need to state clearly and unequivocally once again to Iraq the will of the international community. Canada supports such an approach.

However, resolution 1441 has already made Iraq's obligations very clear and it enables us to address two very important questions. First, is Iraq in violation of its international obligations? The answer to this is becoming increasingly clear through the inspection process, through the report of Dr. Blix, and now through Secretary Powell's report yesterday. Iraq quite evidently is failing to comply fully, actively and openly with the inspections process.

That raises the second question of whether Iraq's failure to comply justifies the use of force at this time. Resolution 1441 provides for serious consequences in the case of Iraq's failure to comply. The nature of those consequences and the conditions when they would apply still remains to be determined however as the process of gathering information is underway.

Dr. Blix is returning to Iraq and will be meeting with Saddam Hussein next week. On February 14 he will report back again to the security council. If we are then told that Iraq continues to be in non-compliance a debate will ensue in the international community about the appropriate measures to take.

Clearly, we all want to avoid war and there is still a window for war to be avoided if Iraq chooses to change its approach and cooperate fully. The timeline is a short one and the need to take a decision will not be deferred forever.

This has been the consistent position of the Canadian government and it has been the voice of Canada on the world stage throughout the Iraqi crisis to support this process. The international leaders we have spoken to tell us they all value our independent stance in this respect, supportive of an important multilateral approach to a multilateral issue.

We fully intend to ensure that Canada continues to advance a foreign policy reflecting Canadian values by sticking with the UN process and the international community in the weeks and months ahead.

[Foreign Affairs, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because I know he is following this trial with interest.

We are very concerned that this trial, when a leader of the opposition is charged by a government, has a political dimension to it. Canadians and Canada are following it closely. We have had representatives at the trial. We are insisting that the trial be conducted with scrupulous attention to the international standards which it requires.

[Foreign Affairs, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we are not joining France and Germany. We are not joining the United States. We are representing the voices of Canadians.

Canadians want a chance for the UN system to work and, if possible, for Iraq to be disarmed with peace, and we continue to work toward that goal.

[Foreign Affairs, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I strongly recommend to the hon. member that she read resolution 1441. Article 4 of resolution 1441 imposes obligations on Iraq to co-operate fully with the United Nations inspection.

I think Secretary Powell demonstrated clearly this morning that Iraq is not co-operating fully with the inspection regime as required by resolution 1441.

That is where we are. Iraq now has a chance to bring itself into conformity when the inspectors go back into Iraq. That is the process we have established, the process we will follow and the process that will work.

[Foreign Affairs, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has always said that if the United Nations gives its approval, Canada will do its share. He said it from the outset and he explained it to President Bush.

This is the basis of our policy, which has always been to work with the United Nations and the Security Council, and to maintain this position. It is a good policy, one which has produced results. Let us then stick to this good policy established by the Prime Minister and the government.