Mr. Speaker, even though we have taken part many times in armed conflict, I think that within the framework of this debate we must get back to the essential aspects of the role which Canada has always played throughout its history and which it wants to strengthen.
It seems to me that the motion before the House refers to the basic characteristics of the role we want Canada to assume. It refers to the “substantial sense of the House” in the vote of March 20, 2003.
It also refers to:
—the unbreakable bonds of values, family, friendship and mutual respect that will always characterize Canada's relationship with the United States of America and the United Kingdom;
I feel it is important to specify that, because very often we get into the debate without necessarily taking the time to stop and look at the text of the motion.
It also talks about:
—our pride in the work of the members of the Canadian Forces who are deployed in the Persian Gulf region;
It is very important to make it clear that we are now involved in two interventions at once. There is the intervention against international terrorism, in which Canada has been providing ongoing support to all its allies to fight this truly profound evil.
The reference to our armed forces in the Persian Gulf relates to this aspect; we have an ongoing collaboration with the U.S. government on our own continent. Extraordinary measures are being taken and have been taken, and will be taken in terms of legislation on the issue of security in all sectors of economic activity.
There is also the whole issue of border security. I think it is worthwhile to point out that the work we are doing to fight terrorism is an important measurement and a perfect illustration of the cooperation we offer to the U.S. government.
We are all aware that September 11 was an excessively deep wound, for the entire western world, and especially for our neighbours to the south. That is why we are cooperating. On the morning after, we set the whole government machinery in motion, in cooperation with the U.S. government, to be able to take extraordinarily effective measures to fight terrorism.
That is one aspect of the current conflict to which we have committed ourselves fully, spending several billion dollars on quite extraordinary measures so that the events of September 11 will never be repeated.
The motion before us says everything we want it to, which is that this conflict be resolved rapidly. The faster it is resolved, the lower the costs. This is important. This war could cost $100, $200, $300 or $400 billion. That was one to the main reasons behind Canada's position. In addition to ensuring that the fewest possible people are killed, we must consider the considerable costs. This money could have been used elsewhere for other missions. That is why Canada hopes wholeheartedly for a rapid resolution to this conflict.
There is also mention of the importance of self restraint, by members of our party and those of other parties. Sometimes, it seems as if some people want, consciously or unconsciously, the misunderstanding between our two countries to grow and, for political reasons, for it to have rapid, immediate and senseless consequences.
Our role as parliamentarians is to promote national reconciliation and work to rebuild bridges, when there are problems between various countries, or even among ourselves, here in Canada.
There is another important part in this motion. It mentions the importance of Canada committing to reconstruction. I will have an opportunity in a few minutes to say more about this.
What must be stressed is that we, as parliamentarians, bear considerable responsibility.
We are messengers of reconciliation, not the kind of people who will go around making inflammatory speeches to widen the divide between coalition members and those who would have preferred a different approach.
Our role as parliamentarians is to emphasize the importance of the United Nations, an international forum which Canada values and which will be increasingly called upon to deal with the challenges facing our decidedly global village.
With due care, the role of the United Nations should help improve the organization's credibility and performance, fight real battles and real wars and, indirectly, achieve cost savings. How many hundreds of billions are going to be spent on resolving a problem we might have been able to resolve? This is not intended as a value judgment on the coalition's decision. However, a less expensive solution might have been possible, provided UN inspectors had been given, as suggested by the Prime Minister, a few more weeks to do their job. There would have be substantial cost savings. Moreover, the United Nations would have been able to go through the process of reconciling its role with the reality of a dangerous potential conflict.
Unfortunately, without making a value judgment about them, our allies chose the fast lane. The quickest solutions are not always the best in the long run. The fact of the matter is that what is true for democracy is also true for problem solving. There are similarities with nature. Democracy works somewhat the same way. Nature must be given time.
I was fully confident that we were in the process of giving the UN a role absolutely essential to its future, by bringing together all the countries willing to work toward the resolution of a conflict. We could have disarmed Iraq and perhaps, eventually, put an end to 12 years or so of an embargo that is causing great hardship to the people of Iraq.
Personally, I firmly believe that our role and all the credibility we want the UN to have start with showing respect for this organization. For the UN to see that, after one, two or three weeks of negotiations, five, ten, fifteen or twenty countries unilaterally decide to resort to the quickest solution to settle the issue may not always be the best approach in my opinion.
The role that Canada has chosen is to strengthen the bargaining power of the United Nations. As the Prime Minister said, our most important mission is definitely to strengthen the UN. We are doing this in the fight against terrorism by allocating considerable funds, as other countries are doing.
I believe, to illustrate our good faith, that Canada has adopted significant measures for many years now to fight poverty in many countries around the world, particularly in Iraq. Since 1990, we have invested $35 million, not through secret organizations that do not know what needs to be done on the ground, but with UN aid, with the assistance of all of the UN organizations that have very specific mandates. If we want to strengthen the role of the UN and confer more powers to intervene upon these organizations that depend on the UN, we have to trust them and work together with them.
In this vein, the interventions that have been carried out deal with food and medical supplies. We have worked with international committees of the Red Cross and many non-governmental organizations. We participated in drawing up plans to intervene in Iraq. We have invested several million dollars together with UN organizations.
Sometimes people say that it is too bad that we are not involved directly in the military action. However, we are already at the reconstruction stage. It is an unfortunate fact, but this is a stage that will be critically important.
I hope that this period will allow us to renew the credibility of the work done by the UN through our role as peacekeepers around the world and particularly through our work in the reconstruction of Iraq.
I hope that the next war to be declared—and it was, indirectly, during the Kananaskis summit by the Prime Minister of Canada—will be the war on poverty. In this war, all of the contributing countries will come together in order to do everything they can to fight poverty around the world, as effectively as possible.
I am convinced that once we succeed in eradicating poverty, a great many armed conflicts will disappear. That is certainly the best guarantee for the development of democracy around the world.
