Svend Robinson

[Health, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Today the national leader of the Assembly of First Nations, Matthew Coon Come, accused the Prime Minister of deliberately shutting first nations peoples out of this week's meetings on health care. He noted, as did the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, that Canada has a shameful, third world record on aboriginal health issues, from infant mortality to AIDS to TB to life expectancy.

I want to ask the minister, why is the Prime Minister deliberately excluding first nations leadership tonight? When will the government finally move to implement the long overdue recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples?

[Foreign Affairs, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific.

Sikh Professor Davinder Pal Singh Bhuller faces execution in India on a bombing charge after having been illegally deported from Germany and tried under the draconian TADA act. Bhuller's wife is a Canadian citizen in Surrey.

Will the minister join with Amnesty International, Sikh groups and many other organizations in calling upon the Indian government to commute this death sentence and order a new, fair trial for Professor Bhuller?

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, the short answer is, absolutely, that observation is accurate. The system was working effectively. In 1998 the inspectors were forced to withdraw because of a threat to bomb, which ultimately was carried out, not, by the way, under the auspices of the United Nations and, I regret to say, with the full support of the Liberal government.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I would take issue with the suggestion of the hon. member that somehow there has been no progress under the system of inspections by the United Nations. I do not know if the hon. member heard Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency, who said that there is no evidence whatsoever of any nuclear weapons in Iraq. That was a success story because quite clearly, and I accept what the member was saying, there was some evidence that there were some preparations being made there. The inspections worked.

According to Scott Ritter, the former chief weapons inspector of the United Nations, inspections worked significantly as well in the area of chemical and biological weapons. Let us not forget one of the reasons that inspections ultimately broke down was because the United States, through the CIA, was using the inspectors for illegitimate purposes. I think the hon. member is aware of that as well. Rolf Ekeus, who was the very respected Swedish head of the inspection program, has recently documented that as well.

We must listen to Blix and ElBaradei who have said they need more time to do their work properly.

Why the rush to war? And ultimately, if there were a war, if people were killed, what would be next? What would it mean, ultimately, for the stability of that region? And finally, what on earth does this particular regime have to do with the fight against terrorism? Bush last night was alleging there was some link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, which shows that there is not the slightest comprehension of the nature of al-Qaeda.

We in the New Democratic Party, our leader Jack Layton, our caucus, and members at our convention last weekend, once again join with Canadians across this land in saying, “no to war, non à la guerre”.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, we strongly support resolution 1441, there is no question about that, just as we support resolutions 242, 338 and so many of the other resolutions that have been adopted, just as we support resolution 687, which, by the way, calls for regional disarmament in the Middle East and our ultimate objective of global eradication of all weapons of mass destruction.

We believe deeply in multilateral institutions. The tragedy here is that the United States, probably more than any other nation in the world today, is showing total contempt for multilateralism, whether it is on the international criminal court, landmines, Kyoto, the ABM treaty or biological weapons.

The United States is a country that uses the United Nations when it can but when the United Nations is not prepared to go its way, it says to hell with the United Nations. We say that approach is one that we are not prepared to accept, least of all when it will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Israel, absolutely.

When we talk about respect for UN resolutions, let us end the hypocrisy and recognize that if the United States were serious about respect for United Nations resolutions, it would be putting far more pressure on the Israeli government to finally end the illegal, dehumanizing, brutal occupation of Palestine and to allow the Palestinian people to have their state, living in peaceful co-existence with the state of Israel as well.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, of course. In fact, one need only look at the tyranny of Hitler and the Nazis in World War II. I was not alive during that time, but I am very proud of the fact that, while the leader of the party at the time, J.S. Woodsworth, took a position of conscience as a pacifist, many others, including the elected representatives present in the House, strongly supported that fight against tyranny.

I am not a pacifist. I would point out that I was among those who called for the international community to intervene in Rwanda, and the world stood by. I was among those who called for the international community to intervene before the slaughter in East Timor, and the world stood by.

In answer to the hon. member's question, no, I am not a pacifist. However I have to ask, what would be achieved by a massive military assault on the hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq who have already suffered? Not only would it be a humanitarian and environmental disaster, it would be in flagrant violation of international law. International law simply does not allow for a pre-emptive strike to avoid the possibility that there might be some sort of an attack. Imagine the precedent that would set. India, Pakistan, Russia and Chechnya, who knows what else.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, it is with a sense of futility, despair, anger and anguish that I participate in the debate this evening. I am very pleased to be able to follow the course of the debate and, in particular, to follow the eloquent remarks of my colleague, the member for Halifax and our spokesperson on the Middle East, who spoke earlier this evening on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues.

Why is it that I say futility, anger and despair? Fundamentally, it is for two reasons. First, because I have to ask where these debates lead. I have participated in many of these take note debates over the years. I find it absolutely unbelievable that we cannot persuade the government that it has an obligation to the people that it says it represents, to allow those people to exercise their right to cast a vote on this most fundamental question of whether or not men and women will go off to war.

I have asked now three or four Liberal members of Parliament and have received three or four different answers as to whether or not there should be a vote on this issue.

I want to be very clear, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, that we demand that rather than this charade of a take note debate that we be allowed to speak out and to vote on behalf of the people we have the honour of representing in this debate.

I remember in 1990 and 1991 when the Liberals were in opposition and Lloyd Axworthy was the foreign affairs spokesperson at the time. I remember working with Lloyd Axworthy hand in hand demanding that the Conservatives allow a vote. Indeed, to their credit, they did. We had that vote then. What has changed since the Liberals were in opposition in 1990?

The other point I have to note, and this point was made eloquently by our newly elected leader, Jack Layton, is that it is tragic to witness that effectively we have no real choice between the position of the official opposition and the government on this basic and fundamental issue. He made that point. If we need any evidence of that, here is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say, the so-called opposition on this issue. He said yesterday:

We should not rule out any options. The Prime Minister's position today seems to be exactly our position.

So much for opposition. They are in bed together. What an unholy alliance between the Liberals and the Canadian Alliance.

I feel a sense of futility in this debate because where does it ultimately lead? We know the government will ignore the voices of elected representatives and ignore the growing voices of people from coast to coast to coast in Canada who are speaking out against war.

Last month it was remarkable that in cities and communities across this land, including, for the first time, in Iqaluit, Canadians, young and old, students, trade unionists, peace activists, raging grannies, academics, ordinary citizens, mothers, fathers concerned about the future of this planet, were speaking out against war.

Although I must say I regret this fact, I am very proud of the fact that we as New Democrats stand alone in saying to our government, no to any war in Iraq.

As my colleague, the member for Halifax, said eloquently earlier, drop the sanctions, do not drop the bombs. That is our position.

I say that I approach this with a sense of futility as well because of how sad it was to watch George Bush speaking last night with the rabid applause of members from both sides of the house. What a pathetic spectacle, particularly for those of us who recall that the democrats in the last war in the gulf put up a strong and eloquent resistance. The American people though are speaking out on this issue.

However as I watched George Bush I felt a sense of horror and foreboding because it was crystal clear that George Bush was absolutely determined to wage war on the people of Iraq with or without the United Nations. He is dictating to the UN by saying, “We will come on February 5. We will show you our evidence. If you accept it, great, but if you do not, tough luck. We rule the world and we will put together a coalition of the will”.

Let us hope that Canada, our government and our Prime Minister will have the courage to stand and represent the people of this country and say that we will not be part of any such coalition, that we stand for peace, for justice and not for war. Lest there be any doubt whatsoever about our position with respect to the regime of Saddam Hussein, we have denounced this. My colleague, the member for Halifax, denounced that regime on many occasions. I might say that we have been far more consistent than the United States and many others.

I will never forget 1988. I was in Geneva at the United Nations commission on human rights shortly after Saddam Hussein had gassed the Kurds in Halabja. However, guess what? The silence of the United States and of Canada was shamefully deafening at that time. Where were they then? Who was it that supplied the precursors of the biological and chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s? I think it was the same people who were supporting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan around the same time. The hypocrisy is absolutely unbelievable.

Bush is prepared to go to war. He does not care about the United Nations nor about our position in Canada. He has Tony Blair supporting him and Australia, apparently, but, for God's sake, why can our government not stand up? What happened to the tradition of that party at one point, the Pearson tradition that led to a well deserved Nobel prize? Shamefully, once again, it is gone.

The tragedy of the Iraqi people is that they already have suffered so terribly from economic sanctions that have been clearly documented by Denis Halliday, Hans von Sponeck and others. We in the New Democratic Party have joined with Canadians in calling for the lifting of those economic sanctions. What better way to release the people of Iraq from the pain, the suffering, the hunger and the humiliation to which they are now subjected than to give them the tools, hopefully, to restore democracy and human rights, and to rebuild their shattered lives and the infrastructure?

Lest anyone asks whether we have spoken out on this, indeed we have. I was in Baghdad in May participating in a conference with Tariq Aziz sitting just a few feet away. I, at that conference, speaking on behalf of my colleagues, accused his regime of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and said that he must be brought to justice. That is our position, but we also say that there must not be a war and that even if the Security Council is bullied or bribed into supporting a war, Canada has an option. It has the option of working for peace, of helping to rebuild after another devastating war. I cannot even imagine it.

They are going to use depleted uranium once again. We have seen the impact of that already. I have seen the children in Basra who were born with terrible congenital deformities.

In closing, I want to once again, on behalf of my colleagues, say that we stand in solidarity with the people of this country. We hope there will be hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast joining with us on February 15, the next demonstrations, with our leader, Jack Layton, and with every member of our caucus.

We will be everywhere in Canada, Quebec and all the regions to say no to war and yes to peace.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, does the hon. member agree there should be a vote in the House before Canadian Forces are sent off to war?

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I would like to seek a clarification from the hon. member as to her position. She said categorically: no war on the people of Iraq. She has spoken eloquently of the impact economic sanctions already have had on the people of Iraq. She, like I, has been in a hospital in Baghdad and has seen the emaciated children and so on. She knows that there would be hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people dying. Whether or not Saddam Hussein would be a victim of this, one does not know. There was a war in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden is still at large. No one knows where he is. We know that one of the untold horrors of that war in Afghanistan was the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. No one talks about those people, as if somehow their lives are not as valuable.

My question for the member from Mississauga is about what her position is with respect to the possibility that there may be a UN resolution supporting military action. We recall what happened in the gulf war. I remember it very well. There were two countries that voted against that war in 1991. One was Cuba. The other was Yemen, on the Security Council. I remember very well that the U.S. ambassador turned to the Yemeni ambassador and said, “That will be the most expensive vote you have ever cast”. The next day the United States cut every penny of the $72 million in aid to Yemen.

The ambassador of Mauritius, another country that sits now on the Security Council, had the audacity to actually question the possibility of a military strike on the people of Iraq. He was recalled by his government, which told him that if he did not shut up the United States would cut off the country's aid.

That is the kind of pressure and intimidation that we see in the Security Council. If that is successful and if the Security Council supports a resolution, my party, I am very proud to say, and our leader Jack Layton, have said that we will not support that war, that Canada should play a different role.

What is the position of the hon. member in those circumstances? Does she stand with thousands and thousands of her constituents in saying no war on the people of Iraq or does she support the position of the member from London earlier who said yes, that in that case it would be no vote, no vote, off we go to war?