John Bryden

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the member for Medicine Hat, I heard him clearly disparage Turkey for its attempts at democracy. The member for Calgary Southeast, in his remarks, disparaged China, Russia, Germany and France. These are not gentle terms of disparagement. These are real slurs.

It seems to me that the argument that the Canadian Alliance is making is that to be pro-American one has to speak disparagingly and to slur and condemn other nations, other nations that may not have democracies as advanced as ours. But we as Canadians should respect all nations. That is what characterizes us as Canadians. I find it appalling that they should equate pro-Americanism with disparaging other countries of the world. Where will it stop?

Let me ask the member opposite one question. In talking about the attack on Iraq, he is constantly talking about Americans. I am not so sure that Americans is what he means. Surely he is really talking about the administration that is in the White House now in most of remarks. So let me ask him, does he think that if the president were Mr. Gore or Mr. Carter or Mr. Clinton, instead of Mr. Bush, the United States would have attacked Iraq under the current circumstances?

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, respect for human rights. What was clearly happening in the case of the former Yugoslavia was that there appeared to be a genocide occurring. There was a major problem occurring.

I would point out that this question of whether we should unilaterally attack another country to liberate it, to bring democracy, is not a question that is driven by whether the UN Security Council approves or not. This is a question that had to be decided by Canada, in terms of these five fundamental principles, and the rule of law and the respect for basic human rights applied in this case.

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the motion. It gives me an opportunity to speak on the war in Iraq after three weeks of fighting. I should note, too, that I am sharing my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.

One thing that has emerged very clearly thus far into the war is that the coalition forces, the United States and Great Britain, are no longer talking very much about disarming Iraq. The issue now really is about regime change. I would suggest that all along the motive for attacking Iraq, with or without the UN, was to change the regime. Now we have a situation where, without the support of much of the world, the United States and Great Britain have attacked Iraq unilaterally with the intention of liberating the people from the dictator Saddam Hussein.

Oddly enough, Canadians have a special knowledge of the issue of countries attacking other countries in order to liberate them from despotic governments, because I point out that the very first time that the United States attempted to invade another country with the intention of regime change was the attack on Canada in 1812.

So far in the debate this has not come up, but the parallels to the present situation in Iraq are certainly instructive. In 1812, Britain was still at war with Napoleon and most of the British troops were committed in Europe. Canada at that time was British North America, divided into Upper and Lower Canada.

The Americans were fresh from their war of independence and had the attitude that people north of the border, the people in Upper and Lower Canada, would obviously dislike the monarchy and would want to partake in the new-found democratic liberties of the United States. Therefore, the Americans declared war and invaded Canada, fully expecting that the people of Canada, both the French Canadians in Quebec or Lower Canada and the mainly British and some American stock in Upper Canada, would immediately support the invading forces.

The opposite occurred. Actually, the war of 1812 to 1814, which is not well remembered in the United States but is part of our lore, was a vicious fight undertaken mainly by militia in Upper and Lower Canada.

What surprised the American forces when they invaded across the Niagara frontier and toward Montreal was that instead of being greeted with open arms, the farmers, mostly the farmers of the areas, mobilized under the few British regulars that were available and fought back.

There were some famous battles. One battle was very close to my riding and that was the Battle of Stoney Creek, where an invading American army of overwhelming superiority--and we have to appreciate that in those days the Americans had overwhelming superiority--advanced up from the Niagara frontier and were defeated in a night battle at Stoney Creek in 1813, saving Upper Canada. The forces that defeated them were about 700 mixed regulars and local farmers from my immediate area.

The same phenomenon occurred that same year in Lower Canada, where again the invading American army overwhelmingly outnumbered the defending Canadian army, which was made up primarily of French Canadian militia, whose general was the Marquis de Salaberry. Again the Americans were defeated and pushed back.

In the end we should remember that particular war. It was a guerilla war. It was fought with irregulars. It was fought viciously. The Americans burned Niagara-on-the-Lake, and the British and the Canadian forces in retaliation took the fort at Niagara at the bayonet, and a lot of blood, death and destruction resulted. Here we have two people who are very similar in culture fighting in this particular way.

The lesson, the lesson of history, and why it is so pertinent to what is happening in Iraq now is that even though a country may have the best intentions with respect to regime change, when an invasion does take place ordinary people defend hearth and home. It does not matter who their leader is or was; they only see the invader and they fight back. These wars are inevitably vicious and inevitably fought with great loss of life and blood.

We can imagine the situation in Iraq now. This is the reason why I think that attacking Iraq was such a bad idea: The Americans and the British are coming in with their tanks and their soldiers in camouflage suits and flak jackets, with highly sophisticated weapons, sunglasses and night vision goggles, and they are fighting with people who basically have only a gun and the shirt on their backs. There is no question of the outcome, but the problem is what happens after that.

Canada was lucky, because in the end, after two years of war in which the Americans had suffered several defeats, mostly defeats in fact, there was negotiation with the British and a decision was made to call it quits. The war ended with no trade of territory on either side.

In the case of Iraq, obviously the Americans will win and Iraq will be defeated, but after that the danger is that there will be anger and hatred that will prevail for many years afterward. If the point of liberation is to bring democracy and freedom to a people, that needs to be the actual outcome.

I fear that the lesson of history tells us that whenever a country has invaded another country with the intention of liberation, when that country has not invited the other country or declared war itself, it has always been a failure. The war may be won and the battles may be won, but the hatred that extends afterwards has caused all kinds of problems in the years that have followed. One can cite very quickly a few examples: the Spanish-American war, in which the Americans invaded Spain--and Cuba and the Philippines--and fought a guerrilla war for five years afterwards. I do not think the Philippines or the Cubans felt particularly liberated. Vietnam is another example. We can do examples with Napoleon when he invaded Spain in 1808. He expected the Spanish people to rise up. In fact it turned out to be an awful, vicious war that weakened Napoleon's empire.

The point finally comes to this. There are two styles, two options, of bringing democracy, human rights, the rule of law, equality of opportunity and freedom of speech to the world. We can try to do it by force. What distresses me is that I think this is a case where the advisers to the president have convinced him that the easy way to bring democracy to the Middle East is by force. I believe that is doomed to failure. We cannot impose democracy on a people. They have to find it themselves. That is the Canadian way.

The war of 1812 was a defining moment for Canada, because if the Americans had not invaded, then the English Canadians of Upper Canada and the French Canadians of Lower Canada would probably have gone their own way and developed stronger ties to the United States and would have eventually been absorbed by the United States, but the opposite happened. Because the Americans invaded, it united the Canadian people to resist the invader.

I suggest we are now at another defining moment. The reason we are not in the war is because of essential principles. The Prime Minister said principles, and they are essential principles. That is because the Canada that has evolved from the war of 1812 is a nation that walks the talk. We really do believe in equality of opportunity. We really do believe in freedom of speech. We really do believe in democracy. We really do believe in basic human rights and the rule of law.

The reason why we cannot join in this war against Iraq is because it is against the rule of international law. Canada chose bravely in my view, because like Mexico we are incredibly intimately tied economically to the United States. It takes bravery to stand on one's principles, and this country has.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, I am proud to be a Canadian.

[Parthenon Marbles, April 1st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, in the few minutes left in this debate I would like to take this opportunity to describe the Elgin marbles, because I have seen them in the British Museum. I saw them the first time I went to England when I was only 23 years old and I think perhaps that affected the way I reacted to them.

I was a student in the north of England and went down to London for the first time to visit the famous British Museum. There was a little sign as one entered: “Elgin Marbles”. I went in there. It was a large room very like this chamber, the House of Commons, not quite so high, and very dark. On the walls there was a white panel about four feet high that went the length of the room on one side and the length of the room on the other. The room was quite dark, really, and not very well lit. As one approached this white panel, it suddenly came alive. What one saw was figures on the panel, figures of horses, chariots and young men behind the horses.

As I got closer, I realized what I was seeing was probably the first attempt at cinematography, because as one looked from left to right on the panel, and this panel of sculptures was from the frieze of the Parthenon and the ancient Greeks would have looked up to see it, and I was looking up fairly high as well, what one saw was the start of a procession of horses and charioteers, young men on these chariots. The horses moved from being still on one side and then began to gallop and gallop toward the right. It was just incredibly profound. It was an incredible image to see the way these animals moved. It was just so striking.

Then there were the statues themselves that were taken from other positions in the Parthenon. Many of these statues were broken, but the figures were so perfectly carved. It was not just the bodies themselves of the gods and the goddesses; it was also the tremendous detail. One could walk behind the figures and see the drapery. They actually carved it in a way that even where one could not see, the exquisite carving was there. The marble itself was lustrous. It just sort of smote the eyes.

I think I can say that I was transported 2,500 years back in time. One could see the genius of the Greeks, which led to the creation of much of the thought of our western civilization, and one could see how incredibly marvellous these statues were. I can understand why the people of Greece would like them back, but wherever they are, they are classic gifts to the world.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 27th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention. It gives me the opportunity to say that, certainly, there is a lot of fear among Canadian businessmen that there will be some reaction in the United States against our trade relations because we did not get on side with the Americans.

However, I would point out that we are not accusing the President of going to war for oil. I would never suggest that is what the war is about. He is going to war for higher moral reasons, even though I do not agree with the way he is going to war.

Having said that, we would not expect Canadians to go to war for economic reasons, solely to protect our jobs and our trade. We would only expect to send our soldiers to war if it was for a reason of high principle. In this case, we could not agree that the high principle was there.

I thank the member for his intervention. I am sorry I do not have time to answer the second half of his question.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 27th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite makes precisely my point. He makes some huge thing about something that is so small and so trivial and creates a climate of anger, hostility and anti-Americanism. Of course Mr. Klein can say what he pleases. No one is stopping him. He has his whole legislature. He has his own forum.

However to suggest that somehow the House could muzzle another legislature is absolutely silly and the member should know better. This is the kind of rhetoric that is leading to this climate of sending the wrong message to the Americans.

The member opposite should consider carefully the kind of damage he is doing by this talk, because he is not serving the interests of Canadians and he is definitely not serving the interests of Albertans.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 27th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Jonquière for her intervention because of course I feel very strongly about this and I think I was probably being too impassioned, but it is so worrisome because these cheap attacks against the Liberals do not pay attention to the collateral damage they must be doing.

I live in a riding that is close to the United States and I have people crossing the border. Ordinary people listen to this because it gets picked up by the talk shows on the Canadian side and it is beamed over to New York State or to North Dakota or wherever else in the country, and ordinary Americans think that these attacks really do represent the position of the governing Liberals and it is simply not true. It is so unfair to base all of this kind of rhetoric about anti-Americanism on one remark, one sole remark by one Liberal caught at a press conference.

The other remarks were criticisms of the president, perhaps, but I suggest that distinguished Americans can pass far more severe criticism of their President than has certainly been uttered by anyone here, and so it is. I would wish Canadians who are following this debate and the debate about Iraq to take note that if there is damage to trade, then the guilt and the fault are mainly with those politicians in this room, in this chamber, who take cheap political advantage of a principled position by this government and this country on the situation in Iraq in order to drive a wedge between two great peoples, between the Americans and the Canadians. I think it is deplorable.

I could say much more, Madam Speaker, but I really feel this is a place where we should try to be very calm and respectful of one another. But I have been extremely disappointed by the behaviour of the Canadian Alliance in this debate on Iraq. It has not served the national interest.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 27th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, this debate on the budget gives me opportunity to make comment on the deplorable conduct of the Canadian Alliance in accusing the Liberals of anti-Americanism and, in so doing, causing incredible damage to our U.S.-Canada trade relations. I point out that the budget, on page 167, deals with the government's anticipated attempts to enhance trade relations with the United States. I submit that the Canadian Alliance's constant attacks on the government for anti-Americanism are damaging that trade. They are doing the very thing that the Canadian Alliance should deplore.

In only the last two days the leader of the Canadian Alliance called the Liberals and their attitude to the Americans a campaign of insults. The Alliance has used these phrases just in the last two days: anti-American remarks, anti-American potshots, anti-American heckling, anti-American bigotry, anti-American verbal insults, anti-American sentiment and anti-American attacks. That is the type of language it is using against the Liberals based solely on an incidental remark picked up at a press conference made by only 1 of 168 Liberal members. This is doing incredible damage because it is sending out a message that is simply not true.

The government, this Parliament, these Liberals on this side are not anti-American. We are simply on the side of a government that has decided to take a principled stance on the attack on Iraq and has decided that Canada's interests, Canada's adherence to principles, shall we say, are better served by staying out of an attack on another country that is not sanctioned by the United Nations.

These attacks by the Canadian Alliance have kept the issue of anti-Americanism alive in the press. There has been story after story after story. The National Post has huge headlines and it goes down to the United States. What it does is it creates hostility and anger in the United States and it damages our trade relations. The very people in this House who claim that we should be doing everything in our power to enhance those trade relations are doing the most damage. The reality is that our American cousins are bigger than what the Canadian Alliance would have them be. Of course they can accept that there is criticism of the administration in the war on Iraq. Of course they can accept that. Americans themselves criticize the American administration's position on Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I should inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Fredericton.

It is deplorable, because what I am getting in my riding are these hostile letters. What has happened is this has gone to talk shows in the United States. Canadians crossing the border encounter this hostility in the United States and it is terribly damaging to our relations, whereas in fact, at the highest level, at the level of the administration, I really do submit that there is not genuinely a problem, because the President of the United States is very certain in his moral justification for the war. I believe he is a moral man. We can respect that he has undertaken what we on this side of the border feel is a dangerous adventure, but he has attempted that adventure for what he sees are very good reasons.

If we disagree on principle, I am confident that the U.S. administration, while it may be disappointed because of course it would like to have the moral authority of Canada on the same side as the administration's decision, but if it cannot have it, surely it would respect the position taken by the sovereign nation, Canada, particularly as our position reflects 50 years of defending multilateralism in the world forum and insisting that conflict, war, should only be begun if a country is attacked first by another nation, or under the auspices of the UN Security Council.

Madam Speaker, the damage is tremendous. The damage is significant because, I remind the House, 80% of our exports go to the United States. This is not trivial. This is very, very dangerous to create this type of climate, to suggest there is animosity to the Americans on this side when it is simply not true. It is done purely for political gain to try to get some kind of political advantage. What they are doing on the other side is they are damaging the interests of Canada and they should be ashamed to do that, because for every job lost because of the charges of anti-Americanism made by the Canadian Alliance, it should be on their conscience.

It is absolutely deplorable. One member made an anti-American remark in a press conference and she was overheard accidentally. The two other remarks that were so terrible were a criticism of the president. Madam Speaker, if you look at the Los Angeles Times of earlier this week, you will see Arthur Schlesinger Jr. criticizing the President of the United States. If a distinguished American can criticize the President of the United States for his tactics in Iraq, then surely so too can a Canadian or two.

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have had this opportunity because I think Canadians have to know that when they take cheap political advantage and damage this country in the process, then I think they should be ashamed of themselves. They do not even understand Americans because Americans are far more generous than what they are giving them credit for.

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw the member's attention to an article that appeared in the National Post on Friday, which is a reprint of an article by Richard Perle, who is the chairman of the Defence Policy Board which advises the Pentagon.

He says in the article that “when you get rid of Saddam Hussein by force, it will be the end of the United Nations.” Then he says:

Well, not the whole United Nations. The “good works” part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the looming chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat.

He does go on to say we have to get rid of the United Nations and bring democracy to these countries by force.

What are we to do with advisers to the president who have such a low opinion of the kind of civil discourse, the democratic discourse, that exists in the United Nations that he terms as merely a chatterbox where people bleat?

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Okanagan--Coquihalla made much of the coalition of the willing, the 30 countries that support the U.S. and U.K. attack on Iraq which includes Albania, Colombia, Nicaragua and Turkey. I noticed that 160 countries are not on this list. Two absentees are Kuwait and Qatar which are the very bases that are being used by the Americans and the British to attack Iraq and yet they are not part of the coalition of the willing. Are they possibly the coalition of the unwilling?