Mr. Speaker, I am unusually qualified in one aspect, among members of Parliament in this chamber, to speak on this issue. I wrote a definitive book on the history of chemical and biological warfare in the late 1980s, which is still, I believe, highly regarded. It dealt with Canada's role in developing, basically, biological weapons. Anthrax, botulinus toxin and tularemia, these agents of biological warfare, were first invented here in Canada. Many of the methods of deploying them were first researched during the second world war here in Canada. Indeed, it is not well known among Canadians but anthrax mass production first began in the world at Grosse Ile, an island in the St. Lawrence, in 1943. Canada has long ago been very active in the field of developing weapons, particularly weapons pertaining to biological warfare, so in this debate I come with some knowledge.
I will begin by saying that I am pretty certain that we can trust the Americans to say that there is a genuine threat. I believe Mr. Bush when he says that Iraq possesses weapons that are near to deployment and are a danger. However, I have to question, in the context of my experience and my understanding of these weapons, because the principal use of these weapons has not changed in 50 years, how they are deployed, how they can be used, how effective they are. Whether it is poison gas or biological agents, nothing has really changed in how they can be employed.
One of the problems in the debate has been the use of the term weapons of mass destruction. Certainly an atomic bomb or a hydrogen bomb is a weapon of mass destruction, but chemical weapons and biological weapons are more correctly characterized as unconventional weapons. They have two basic uses. They can be used on a small-scale terrorist attack, the distribution of an infectious agent, for example, in some civilian populated target. Or, when properly loaded in some type of hardware, they can be used for much broader dispersal, say, over a city. The important thing to bear in mind is that whether it is chemical or biological, if it is going to be used as a weapon of mass attack, it has to have a lot of hardware associated with it in order to deliver it to its target.
When I hear Mr. Bush talk about the threat, I have had to ask myself in that context what kind of threat must it be, because the reality is that if it is a threat of terrorist attack of small quantities of an infectious agent or that kind of thing or the release of a vial of nerve gas in some civilian target in the United States, that threat has existed for the last 50 years. Indeed, since September 11 the public has been very aware of the threat. They have been conscious of it because the first time, to my knowledge, that anthrax has ever been used was post-September 11, although I note that it was used by a domestic American terrorist. I cannot understand the threat in that context because in fact even when one sends weapons inspectors into a country like Iraq one cannot possibly track down the small quantities of these agents that are so deadly and are so portable. I would suggest that there is probably just as much of this agent in unlawful hands in Pakistan as there is under the regime of Saddam Hussein. So what is the problem?
I can only conclude that what the Americans have noticed, are aware of, is that Iraq is developing hardware to deliver unconventional weaponry, unconventional arms, unconventional agents, to area targets. In other words, perhaps through espionage or satellite surveillance or one thing or another, the United States has become conscious of the fact that there is the production of missiles or some other means by which the Iraqis could deliver a biological or chemical agent to some area target.
I do not think that the threat can possibly be, at this stage, to the continental United States, except in the context of terrorism. As I said earlier, that terrorist context could apply to terrorists in Pakistan or in North Korea. It could be anywhere in the world, even in the United States. Attacking Iraq in order to stop this problem is not going to work.
Indeed, I would suggest that one of the reasons why there has not been a terrorist attack using a biological or chemical agent on civilian targets, particularly in the United States, is the fact that there would be moral outrage not only in all the world over such an attack but there would be moral outrage in whatever religious community is associated with the attack. If it were al-Qaeda, then I would suggest that all of Islam would be universal in its condemnation of such an attack. That is why I do not think that type of terrorist attack has either occurred or is likely to occur.
However, it does seem to me that given that situation there probably is the real threat that Saddam Hussein has developed the capability of using a biological agent or a chemical agent against Israel. I would suggest that what is unsaid in this debate and the debate we hear out of the United States is that the real fear is that the real target is Israel.
Indeed, during the gulf war and before I became a politician I was an expert commentator on television on the issue of what would happen if the Scud missiles that were landing in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv were charged with poison gas. I would explain to the best of my knowledge from reading the literature, most of it open literature I should say, on the probable effects. They are horrible. If one has a sufficient number of missiles, and not a lot are required, and particularly if biological agents are used, a lot of people can be killed.
I do not think Mr. Hussein has the capability of striking the United States, but he probably has the capability of striking Israel. I suggest it is this that prompts the United States to want to dismantle the arms that may be introduced in Iraq. I point out also that the weapons inspectors will never be able to determine or locate small quantities of agent. Enough botulinus toxin to kill all the people in Ottawa can be stored in a quart jar and enough infectious agent to kill a lot of people can be stored in a vessel the size of a thimble. So I do not think it is that. I think Mr. Bush feels that he has to disarm the weaponry that may be aimed at Israel. I think that is a laudable aim.
However, there is a problem: the suggestion that the United States might take this action unilaterally. My great fear is if it is done unilaterally without the sanction of the United Nations, which gives it a certain amount of moral authority, if the Americans were to actually do this, whatever their good intentions for Israel, to do it unilaterally would be seen as aggression throughout the Muslim world and much of the other world besides. What I fear is that it would give moral authority to the terrorists to retaliate with unconventional weapons, biological or chemical, on civilian targets elsewhere in the world.
I do not think we have a problem now. I do not think they would have the moral authority that they would even dare to do such a thing. However, if they felt bolstered by what they could say would be unwarranted, improper aggression, a crusade against Islam or anything like that, then they might be tempted to use the weapons in a terrorist context.
So whatever happens, I think it has to be done in the context of the United Nations.
I support my government entirely and I hope that the American government is listening, because I think our government is giving extremely good advice. It is a genuine threat that is occurring in Iraq. I think it is a threat against Israel, but we must not do anything that sets fire to the world, that unleashes the use of weapons that so far, with only very few instances, have not been seen in the world.
