Mr. Chairman, let me start on a procedural note. I regret very much that the government chooses take note debates over real debates followed by a vote. I think that is bad for Parliament. It confirms the reputation of this place as a place that only talks, does not act and does not have authority. It is also bad for policy because the government has neither the authority that a real vote would give nor does it have access to the consensus and the understanding that can come when governments are open with people.
I do not want to belabour it but there is a better way to do this. In the question of the preparation for the gulf war there were regular votes. There was a continual hearing before the relevant standing committee of Parliament. There was an opportunity for Parliament to be heard and for Parliament's vote to count. I would recommend that to the government of the future.
There was one difference of course with the gulf war and that was, whether people agreed with our government or not, that the Government of Canada had a policy which we explained, defended and advanced in the world. The government today cannot explain what it is doing because it does not know what it is doing.
I want to start with what is clear about Iraq. The regime in Iraq is vicious, brutal and dangerous. It is dangerous to the region and it is dangerous to the world. It has developed weapons of mass destruction and it has shown a willingness to use those weapons. Everyone, not least the citizens of Iraq, would be better off with a new regime. It is also clear that since the pressure went on, Iraq has begun to heed the United Nations and world opinion. This pressure would have been nowhere near as strong, it has to be said, without the leadership of the United States of America. That the UN inspectors are there at all is a tribute to American determination.
The issue we have to look at here is what does Canada do? First, we have to make our own decisions in our own traditions. I know the minister had to leave tonight to get to Washington. I was pleased that before he left he cited the phrase from the president's speech that struck my attention, namely that the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. That certainly is language that Canadians should regularly quote back to the government of the United States.
One of the difficulties that we face, although I will not have time to elaborate, is that the government has so ignored relations between Canada and the United States that it has none of the leverage that is needed to say no to the United States on tough issues. I know something about that. As foreign minister in a previous government we had to deal with a demand by the United States to have Canada endorse an issue that was very dear to the heart of the then president, the so-called strategic defence initiative, star wars. We were able to say no to the Americans and to maintain good relations because we had built up strong leverage with the Americans.
This government's abandonment of the relationship with the United States of America has meant that we are being forced willy-nilly into a Hobson's choice between the United Nations and the United States, and hat is simply another failure of the policy of the government.
Second, we should be using all the independent influence that we have to bring pressure for change in the Iraq regime, including our influence in the region; including such influences as we have left as our ODA levels fall and fall; including such influences as we have left in the developing world; and including looking for potential asylum for Saddam Hussein, if that is the only peaceful way by which the regime can be brought about. Our influence has withered as our defence spending has fallen, as our official development assistance has fallen, but we nonetheless still have significant influence in the world.
Third, and this is a key matter in the debate tonight raised with eloquence by the leader of the Bloc Québécois and others, we have to respect the United Nations and we have to respect international law.
It may be that a special burden of leadership rests with the world's only super power and that it must contemplate acts which other nations would not contemplate. However a special burden also rests with this country whose distinction is not our naked power but our leadership in building and respecting international institutions. More than the regime in Iraq is at issue, so also is the regime of international law and the respect for international institutions.
Canada has always played its role as a member of multinational coalitions. We did so proudly and effectively during the gulf war. We did so under the auspices of NATO in Kosovo. However, we have always acted in the context of the United Nations and the international community.
Before the minister left he spoke two or three times about working with the United Nations now. He treats as hypothetical and leaves open the possibility that Canada would take actions that are not approved by the Security Council of the United Nations. He should stop doing that. He should be clear that Canada will operate only within the authority of the United Nations and he should not hold open the possibility of some kind of independent act.
Of all countries, Canada should not be ambiguous about our respect for the United Nations and for international law. We should be clear now that we will act only within the context of initiatives sanctioned by the Security Council.
Finally, I want to talk about what I think is a real need of context here. We in Canada should be the strong, calm voice urging cool-headed examination of the consequences of all the actions that are proposed and, indeed, the consequences of inaction. For example, if an attack were to occur, particularly were it to occur outside the auspices of the United Nations, what would be the impact on the stability of the rest of the Middle East and particularly on the stability of moderate regimes in Egypt or Jordan or the regime in Saudi Arabia? How would the tinderbox in Israel--Palestine be affected? How much more aggressive and dangerous would anti-Americanism become in the wider Muslim world, from Africa to Asia to the former Soviet Union? What would be the fate of the real and broad coalition which was built to fight terrorism, a coalition that could come apart over the issue of an intervention that was not broadly supported?
What reason on earth have we to believe that outside powers could create a successful new regime in Iraq or even hold together the Iraqi state? How likely is it that the war would be short? How likely is it that the very weapons we fear might be unleashed in desperation?
It is easy to be mesmerized by the debate in the United States, which is a debate naturally fueled by its status as a super power and by its difficulty sometimes seeing the world as others of us see it. However we have a responsibility as a country with our own independent reputation, very often a reputation of working very closely with the United States, to be prepared to tell hard truths to the United States, including on occasions saying “Don't go there, don't do it that way, do it this way”. We also have a reputation as a supporter of the United Nations on multinational approaches. We have to turn the world's attention in these critical next several weeks to some of the consequences of some of the actions that might be being contemplated. We cannot let Canada simply drift into support by ambiguity or by some other kind of drift.
The next two steps in the process are clear. Secretary Powell will come next week to the Security Council with evidence, and he should understand that the world expects to see evidence. There were several references last night, all of them vague, about intelligence reports. We need to know more, not necessarily the House but authorities need to know more about the content of those intelligence reports. It is not enough to say that they are there. There has to be scrutiny of them. We need the proof. Then of course Hans Blix will return in mid-February with a further report on Iraqi compliance with inspections.
These are very complex questions. I want to return to where I began. The capacity of the Government of Canada to deal with these complex questions, to mobilize Canadian public opinion and to have support if we need to take hard decisions, would grow immensely if the Government of Canada would take the Parliament of Canada and the people of Canada more into its confidence and would allow, as have previous governments in previous conflicts such as the gulf war, members not just to speak into the wind but to vote on the question as to whether or not Canada should become engaged in these actions internationally.
