Jean Chrétien

[Kyoto Protocol, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is an international obligation that can be taken by the national government. This has been the position that we have had over the years. The implementation is always done in Canada.

We have two levels of government, and we always manage to implement our international obligations in collaboration with the provinces and the private sector in Canada. It will be the same thing with Kyoto.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is always like that when people do not look at all the facts. I was attacked by the Leader of the Opposition for statements I made about the situation. It so happened that many of the words I used in my interview with the CBC were used last week by President Bush himself.

This is another loose interpretation by the leader of the NDP rather than looking at the facts. The Canadian position is an extremely strong position that has gained support from a lot of people who did not support that type of position before.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is no resolution. People are debating at this time what the next resolution should be. We say that we need a new resolution that has to be approved by the Security Council. Members of the Security Council are debating what the wording should be. We are not a member of that committee. The resolution does not yet exist.

The Security Council is trying to build one. We are in agreement with other governments that there is a need for a new resolution. The Americans are in agreement with that statement as well as the British and the French. The question now is what the words will be. When the words are known we will take action on the resolution. We need a new resolution and that is being worked on at this moment.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have followed the rules of procedure and, on several occasions since I became Prime Minister, have held debates here in the House of Commons. This was the case when we sent troops to Afghanistan, it was the case for Kosovo, and I believe that the procedure which was followed was satisfactory at the time, as it should normally be in the future.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a debate is now taking place on this topic, right here in the House of Commons. It was held yesterday and will continue today.

Should new actions be necessary, we will come back to the House, as we did last night.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we hope that the inspectors will return to Iraq as soon as possible to do their job, but we also agree that a new resolution a required to clearly indicate what must be done and within what timeframes reports ought to be made to the United Nations.

There are already resolutions in effect. If they want to comply with the old resolutions, that is fine with me, but they will also have to comply with the one that will eventually and hopefully be adopted by the security council.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a debate is indeed taking place in the U.S. Congress, and a resolution to support or not to support the president will be passed. This is a U.S. domestic matter.

Canada's position remains unchanged. Any military action in Iraq will require a UN resolution. If there is a UN resolution which clearly indicates that all members that took part in previous coalitions want to participate, Canada will participate, but only with the support of the security council.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the many discussions I have had with President Bush I have always insisted that they should go through the United Nations with new resolutions, and that was the position taken by other leaders.

When I had discussions with the prime minister of Great Britain about this subject in South Africa we discussed the need to go to the United Nations. That was the message that was conveyed to the president by Mr. Blair. When I met the president on the Monday, it was evident that on the Thursday he would be asking the United Nations to adopt a strong, clear and effective resolution.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have said for many weeks. Our position has been very clear. We said that we have to operate with the United Nations and that it is very important to give international credibility to any intervention there. We do not believe in unilateralism. We believe in multilateralism. We need to have all the coalition working together to make sure that this type of armament will not be used either against his own people or neighbouring nations.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Saddam Hussein has been a terrible leader for his country. He has attacked Iran and Kuwait, and he has used instruments of mass destruction against his own people.

However, we have always held the position that in order to move there we need to have a new resolution at the United Nations that will be tighter than the previous one to make sure that the inspectors will be able to go in and do their jobs, and that if he has those types of mass destruction armaments then they should be destroyed, as was agreed to by him after the war in Kuwait.