Bill Casey

[Canada-U.S. Relations, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in December Liberal MPs asked the government to appoint a special group of cabinet ministers to develop “a more coherent strategy to improve relationships with the United States”. Instead, we have the fiasco of the Minister for International Trade holding a sales event jammed in between memorials for the seven astronauts killed in the crash of the Columbia. This lack of respect not only trivializes the Columbia fatalities but diminishes the real issues between these two countries such as the ongoing problem of softwood lumber.

This Canada sales event should have been postponed for a more appropriate time and the government should make every effort to mend fences, not aggravate an already fractured relationship.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, it has certainly been an interesting evening. I must say that I have learned a lot from members and I have come a long way.

One of the members mentioned Israel and Palestine a second ago, which reminded me of an incident a couple of weeks ago. I was on the phone to a chap in Jerusalem, a man I know quite well who worked for the department of foreign affairs in Israel. We were talking about Iraq and whether it has weapons of mass destruction. I told him that we had had a committee meeting and there was no absolute evidence to convince me that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I was meandering around with this conversation and the phone went silent. After a minute, he said that he supposed it was all right for me sitting in Canada to speculate about weapons of mass destruction, but he was going to be fitting his children with gas masks that afternoon. That really shook me and made me think about how serious this subject is. We in Canada are relatively distant and protected and safe, but many of the people who may be affected by what happens as a result of UN resolution 1441 are certainly in a different predicament.

This debate is certainly an interesting debate, but like many others, in fact almost all, what I have heard tonight is kind of pointless. We have shared our ideas and have tried to convince others of our points of view, but at the end of the day we will go home and this will not come to anything because there will be no vote. It makes the whole exercise relatively pointless other than letting us air our views, getting it off our chests and maybe trying to make some people understand our point of view. In the end it really does not go anywhere because there is no vote. I cannot think of any reason why there will not be a vote, but there will not be one. The debate will die and we will all go home and carry on tomorrow.

There are some common denominators from almost every speaker. I do not want to jump to conclusions, but I believe most speakers tonight have acknowledged that there is a dangerous regime in Iraq and it is very guilty of some awful offences. The regime in Iraq poses a threat to its neighbours and to other countries around the world, and the status quo is not acceptable. I think we all agree on that.

What we do not agree on is a path of action and the timing on how to deal with this issue, and those are the things I would like to talk about.

If we take the wrong path, we will pay an awful price in terms of human lives, destruction and casualties. I have read half a dozen different estimates of what the possible casualty list could look like, but one I saw today said that on the Iraqi side it could be between 1,000 and 50,000 soldiers. These are people. On the side of the allies it could be between 100 and 500 soldiers. This does not include civilian casualties and these days in a war as much as 80% of the casualties are civilians. The downside of this is absolutely incredible. We must make every possible effort we can to avoid a violent conflict.

I know that it is a serious situation, I know that the status quo is not acceptable and I know that we are dealing with a tough situation, but we cannot say we will not try this because we are fed up, time has run out, we will go to war, and 50,000 people may die. We have to do our job here and the United Nations has to do its job. The Americans have to do their job. All countries have to do their job because the downside is absolutely horrendous.

If there is a war in Iraq, we know what the outcome will be. Allies on the side of the United States will win the war. There is no question about that, but what will the price be on both sides? Whatever it is, it will be huge.

When this problem presented itself after years and years of failure, the United Nations dealt with it on November 8 by unanimously passing resolution 1441. The biggest part of resolution 1441 was the mandate to re-establish the weapons inspectors and put them to work under Dr. Hans Blix. Dr. Blix had no deadline for completing his work.

This is what puzzles me. I really do not understand how even after just a couple of weeks of Mr. Blix being in Iraq there was suddenly this talk: “We are getting awfully impatient. The time is up. He said lots of time. We have to move on now. There is no time. We are tired of waiting”. I do not understand that. I do not understand why the resolution was passed in the United Nations unanimously, but the same people who voted in favour of re-establishing the weapons inspectors and giving them the mandate to do their jobs right away started to say that they were fed up and did not have time.

We have to give them time. They have only been at it for 60 days. My understanding is that they do not even have all the equipment they need to detect the weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear, chemical or biological. The inspectors must be allowed to finish the mandate they were given by a unanimous resolution passed at the United Nations.

Not only will Iraq be a victim of a war if it carries on, but if we do not allow the weapons inspectors to do their jobs I think the other victim will be the United Nations. We have heard about the shortcomings of the United Nations tonight. We have heard about its failures. There is no question about that, but if a unanimous motion of the United Nations is circumvented or sidestepped, it will be a very serious dilution of credibility for the United Nations and it will undermine any future effort that it attempts.

Dr. Blix has asked for more time to complete his mandate and I think it should be given to him, for sure. I see no reason why it should not be given to him. There is no question about the problem. There is no question about the challenge. There is no question about the threat that must be eliminated. There is no question that the first report that Iraq is not complying was very disappointing. Technically yes, but in spirit no, and it is just not good enough.

On the other hand, right now there is no imminent threat from Iraq for the United States or for any other country. The whole world is focused on Iraq. There is no threat. Again I say there is no reason not to let Hans Blix finish his job. In fact there is no reason why we should not all be trying to do everything we can to find a non-violent resolution. We should exhaust every possible alternative before we send our young people into war with the possible casualties that are predicted. When it comes to diplomacy versus violence or military action, we have to do our job. We have to do the very best we can.

There is a role for Canada. In this whole exercise we have been almost invisible around the world, but there is a role. We can demand of the United Nations, our allies and our partners that Hans Blix be given all the time he needs. Again, there is no reason not to give him time now. The system is working. The pressure is on. The inspectors are in and are able to go anywhere they want in an unfettered manner. Let us make sure they have that time. Canada can do that. Canada can lobby other countries. The Prime Minister can clearly state that we support resolution 1441 in every respect and that we insist the weapons inspectors be given the time to complete their jobs.

We should also insist that when Dr. Blix has done his report it should come back to the Security Council for a second resolution. The first resolution is not clear. It was designed to be unclear to allow it to go through and be ambiguous and I think that was a mistake. Nevertheless, that is what it is. The first resolution 1441 is ambiguous. Another thing Canada could do is have a vote in the House, but I do not think that is going to happen.

I want to remind everyone that if the war goes ahead it will not be confined to Iraq. I mentioned the man in Israel who was buying gas masks for his children. I believe that the war would destabilize all of the Middle East. It would spread hate and probably encourage more terrorism in the future instead of less. It will not be confined to just one small area.

There was a time when Canada did play a really respectable role in the world community. We were listened to. We were asked to be involved. We were invited to participate. Now we are invisible. In fact, when I watch the evening or morning news the positions are always recited, with Britain saying this today and Russia waffling on that, and France and Germany being here. The positions of those countries are stated clearly, but Canada is not mentioned. It is like we are invisible. Right now Prime Minister Blair is in the U.S. and is about to meet with President Bush. Meanwhile, our minister of defence goes to Washington and cannot find anyone to talk to.

I want to finish by saying there is no question that there is a very serious threat which must be dealt with. There is no question that UN resolution 1441, backed up by the threat of force, has convinced Saddam Hussein to open up and allow the process to start to work, but now we have to allow it to finish. Canada must stop being invisible. We owe it to our military and we owe it to all the people who will be involved in a terrible conflict if diplomacy fails.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, the member suggested that there was still time in North Korea to resolve the challenges there. He did not say how, but I assume it would be diplomatically or through some intervention other than military. If the diplomatic measures fail, does the member anticipate a war with North Korea?

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Blix was referred to quite often in the hon. member's speech. Mr. Blix has asked for time to finish his mandate as provided to him by a unanimous motion in the United Nations. He wants time to finish his report and I do not know what that report will say in the end. Does the hon. member think that Mr. Blix should have the time it takes to finish his report to the standard that was outlined to him when he was first commissioned to do it?

Does the member think that Iraq poses a threat within the next month, two months, three months or even four months to the United States or Canada?

[Softwood Lumber, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on December 23 the Minister for International Trade issued a press release saying, “The government of Canada announces $15 million of support for Canadian softwood lumber associations”.

The press release implies support for associations in all regions of Canada. Are there any regions of Canada that will not receive one single cent of this support money?

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, following the tabling of the Blix report before the United Nations Security Council on Monday, the United States concluded that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 1441.

Then, Britain and Australia concurred. On the other hand, France and Germany argued that more time was needed. What is Canada's position?

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, actually it is a strange thing. The conversation I had with the man in Jerusalem was a couple of weeks ago, but this morning I talked to Amir Mamon, who I am sure some here know. He was the counsellor at the Israeli embassy in Ottawa for a long time. I called him this morning to find out the results of the election in Israel. Some of our members have been involved in hopefully bringing members of parliament from the Knesset and the Palestinian legislature here and I was hoping they had been re-elected. They all were.

At that time he told me how his two boys were adjusting to life in Israel with the fear, the pressure and the cloud that they live under every day from the threat of any possible violence or whatever. They love it there because it is home but they are having a hard time adjusting to it.

Anytime talk to anyone there, they are fearful of the impact of a war in Iraq and what could happen in the region. It is so easy for us to say that we have to get rid of Saddam Hussein, we will have a quick war and it will be over with. However it will not be a quick war. It will be a terrible war. It will be a big war. It will be a broad war. It will affect the whole region. It will affect all Muslim countries. It will create terrorists and hate and we have to do everything we can to avoid it.

On the vote, I am sorry I did not understand the question. However I kept track of the speakers and I thought everyone said that they supported a vote except the foreign affairs minister. We have to ask ourselves why there would not be a vote on an issue like this. I do not know the answer.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Yes, Madam Chairman, I do think the United States should produce the evidence it has. It should be provided to the weapons inspectors and probably should have been provided to the weapons inspectors a long time ago.

To me the most credible of all the parties involved in this debate are the weapons inspectors. I have a lot of faith that Dr. Blix and his team will tell us the real facts. There are so many stories, so many motives floating around, so many suggestions, and so much intelligence. At our foreign affairs committee meeting, I asked very specifically what evidence our Department of Foreign Affairs had of weapons of mass destruction. The answer was that there was a preponderance of evidence left over from the last war and so on and so forth, but there really was not any that I could see and touch. I came away not at all convinced that there was any evidence of weapons of mass destruction here.

Again, I am putting my faith in the weapons inspectors. I think they are well qualified. They have the mandate to do it. All they need now is a little time in which to do it.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, the member was not listening, because I said several times that the only reason the system is working is the credible threat by the United States. I give it full marks for that.

However, the system is working now. We have received the first report, which was not a clean slate. It was not all negative but it was certainly not all positive. The system is working. Dr. Blix has come back with his first report and I think the system will continue to work under the threat of force. Again, it would not be working if the threat of force were not there, but it is working.

Rather than go to the next step and revert to a war that could kill thousands of people, why not let the system work a little longer? There is no reason not to let it work a little longer.

I think our position is very clear. Canada should not participate in a war without a second resolution at the United Nations. Hans Blix has to be allowed to go back to make his report to the United Nations, not to anybody else. Hans Blix has to decide whether there is a material breach. He has to outline what the deficiencies are. Then the United Nations should vote on it again, because resolution 1441 was meant to have a second vote. Serious consequences are not necessarily war.

[Iraq, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, incredibly a minute ago the Minister of National Defence said who knows what the rules of engagement in the conflict will be. If the Minister of National Defence does not know the rules for his own forces, who does?