Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I rise to address the only issue all parliamentarians wish to avoid during their political career.
Last night, the first bombs were dropped on Iraq. Diplomacy has failed, and we are now caught in a war that the whole world wanted to avoid. I regret the military invasion now under way. I regret that the United Nations was unable to bridge the gap.
But now we are before a fait accompli, and Canada must turn to the future.
Whenever a major international issue arises we must ask, what are Canada's interests here and how are they best served?
The conduct of the Canadian government on Iraq has severely damaged three of our most important interests. The most evident damage is that the government has gone out of its way to offend the foreign country on which the lives of our citizens most depend.
It is not wrong to disagree with the United States.
As foreign minister, I disagreed with them directly and openly on “star wars”, on Nicaragua, on South Africa, on our sovereignty in our north, on human rights, and other issues.
What is wrong is to deliberately insult the United States in the process, both by the intemperate statement of ministers and senior officials and by the Prime Minister's simple lack of courage in not calling the president himself to advise that Canada, in the Prime Minister's signature phrase, “would not participate” in dealing with a regime we know is deadly.
That was simply bad manners. One consequence is that ordinary Canadians will pay a high price for a long time on softwood, on wheat, and on other economic issues. They will pay a high price in discrimination, harassment, and suspicion along our most important border.
The government's carelessness has harmed two other fundamental Canadian interests. We were once known as a country that acted on principle, not just on polls or domestic popularity.
War is always inhuman. The real issue with this war is whether it is legitimate in international law. As the member for Winnipeg--Transcona and others indicated, serious scholars disagree on that issue.
In the absence of formal legal opinions from Canada's government--I asked but it would not provide them--I believe that existing Security Council resolutions give the legitimacy of the United Nations to this intervention. I accept the considered view of the government of the United Kingdom that the combination of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 provide the authority required. However, for the Government of Canada the question of principle does not matter.
The foreign minister says, and repeats, that for moral, principled Canada “it is not a matter of determining whether military action is legitimate or otherwise”. What if we had said that about Tiananmen Square or about South Africa, or about human rights? Canada was once a country that set the highest standard of respecting international law, but the government does not care whether the action is legal or illegal. We have blown away one of Canada's most important and distinctive credentials.
Finally, in two world wars, and in Korea, and from Lester Pearson forward in diplomacy, Canada was a country which others could count on for international leadership. When Suez devastated the existing international order, Canada led in the creation of peacekeeping. When relations between the United States and Europe were strained and divided, Canada led in the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We led in the Rio conference on the environment. We led in official development assistance. We led on South Africa. We took our place at the Organization of American States. We led in trade negotiations. We led in the gulf. That leadership gave us a status and an influence well beyond our power. However, the government does not lead and Canada pays the price.
Our military spending is a dangerous joke. Our foreign aid has been cut by the government to nearly the lowest levels in the developed world. We have become, on international issues, the invisible country.
The Prime Minister chose his words quite carefully in his statement Monday. He said, “Canada will not participate”. His Canada does not participate. It sits on the sidelines without even a view as to whether a major intervention is legal or not. When it comes to pulling together what war has torn apart, the Prime Minister wants to wait for the bombs to drop. He wants to wait for more Iraqis to be killed before he takes any action on the reconstruction of Iraq.
We know that as a result of the tensions of the last two months, NATO is torn and the next meeting of the G-8 is in doubt. The United Nations and the Security Council are divided. The coalition against terrorism has been shaken. All of those are essential to Canada. Yet Canada is doing nothing to repair the damage. Canada, under the government, “will not participate”. Lester Pearson would hang his head in shame.
I believe the United States and Britain should have given the UN inspectors more time. I believe the Prime Minister of Canada should have intervened directly with the presidents of France and the United States as former Prime Minister Mulroney did so effectively in the gulf war. I believe the reconstruction of Iraq is too important to leave to a Pentagon that wants to experiment with transplanting American values throughout the Middle East.
Most urgently, I believe Canada has a unique opportunity to shape the outcome of the drama by taking the lead right now to ensure the United Nations and not any single country has primary responsibility for the sensitive work of reconstruction. Reconstruction is more than building roads and dams. It involves bringing together different people and respecting those differences. It involves having the reputation of someone who can be trusted to respect differences.
There is only one organization now mounting to deal with reconstruction and it is the Pentagon of the United States. That is not adequate. The United Nations must be given the power to do that. It does not have that power now. Canada should be acting now to ensure that there is a consensus in the United Nations to allow a Security Council resolution that would establish the United Nations as the instrument of reconstruction in Iraq and wherever else devastation occurs.
Let us get on with that future. Let us stop, if I may speak to the motion of the Bloc, pretending that this conflict was in the motion's words “initiated by the United States”.
War is regrettable, but the United States did not initiate these actions.
One man is responsible for today's events. One man has defied the international community for over a decade. One man carries the burden of the suffering of his nation. That is Saddam Hussein.
That is where I believe my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois went terribly wrong. Their motion points the finger at the wrong man and lays the blame squarely at the wrong doorstep. Their motion would tie Canada's hands should a cornered Saddam Hussein do the unthinkable.
Let us stop pretending that Saddam Hussein is a victim.
Remember the Kurds he killed. Remember his war with Iran. Remember his invasion of Kuwait. Remember his slaughter of his own people. Remember his stark and steady defiance of the resolutions of the United Nations. Let us remember that blame is a game for the sidelines. Historically on international issues Canadians made hard judgments so we could act in the arena where history is decided.
The government's simple lack of courage and refusal to take hard decisions has meant we have had very little influence on the war. Let us now not squander our opportunity to help shape the reconstruction and the peace.
