Stephen Harper

[Iraq, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, no Canadian can be proud of a position he or she cannot even figure out.

Today's declaration from the European leaders also warns about the lack of resolve of certain UN Security Council members. It states:

We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.

Does the government share these views and has it conveyed them on behalf of Canada to all wavering members of the Security Council?

[Iraq, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today a group of European nations, including Italy, Poland, Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Denmark and the Czech Republic, has issued a declaration declaring support for the multilateral coalition of nations led by Australia, Britain and the United States pursuing the unconditional disarmament of Saddam Hussein. Their declaration states:

We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

Is the government now prepared to unequivocally join and support this coalition of nations?

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, as I said in my speeches in October and tonight, I believe the position we have laid out is consistent with international law. I also believe the worse thing that could happen to the United Nations would be for members of the international community to disregard and fail to enforce, if necessary, about 15 resolutions over the past 12 years.

It is always easy to get up and chant “no war, no war, no war”. Nobody wants it. However I wonder if that member is equally comfortable with telling her constituents and the country that if Saddam Hussein continues on a path of developing weapons of mass destruction with international terrorist links there is absolutely nothing we or anyone else will do about it.

That is the position of the NDP. Its members have already said they do not care about public opinion or about the resolution of any member of the United Nations Security Council.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I think we have found not dissimilar things. It is clear, as I said in my speech, that Canadians do not want war. On the other hand Canadians do not want Saddam Hussein to continue programs of weapons of mass destruction, to ignore United Nations resolutions, and to be able to continue as if United Nations resolutions simply did not exist.

Obviously the way out of this is to have Saddam Hussein comply unconditionally without war. We may have to choose between those things. I hope that if we choose between those things the member thinks about the long term interest. We must do this in democratic countries. It is not easy in democratic countries. We stumbled into the second world war because of a bunch of politicians could not decide to take tough action when it would have been easy.

We must assess for ourselves the state of the world, the state of the threat, and we will have to make a decision. Surely the hon. member will not make that decision just based on who calls his office more frequently that particular day.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, clearly the seating arrangement this evening lends new meaning to the term “coalition”.

Let us talk about the importance of the United Nations. Since the gulf war in 1991, it has passed some 15 resolutions. It is important for the UN's credibility to have these resolutions respected. If Saddam Hussein can ignore some 15 resolutions on this matter, what value will the United Nations have in the future? That is an important question.

In my opinion, if the United Nations cannot act in the future, it is up to each sovereign nation to take its own decisions. The United States is going to, and I think that Canada and the other countries will take their decisions under these circumstances. A decision has not been made yet. We will consult with our allies and our past experiences will help us to decide on such an issue.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I repeat my earlier answer that one does not say one is not interested in public opinion, but one is not a prisoner to it.

I notice the NDP already has taken a position on a future course of action that does not involve any input or opinion from either the Canadian public or the United Nations. The NDP will be opposed to war in Iraq regardless of the circumstances, just as it was in 1991, which quite frankly would have left Saddam Hussein today in charge not only of Iraq but Kuwait as well.

In terms of the second resolution, I think I was clear in my speech. We do not believe a second resolution is warranted. There have been a series of resolutions going back to the terms of the ceasefire in the gulf war in 1991. It is clear to us that a second resolution is not legally required. Whether it is advisory or not is a decision the Security Council itself and the allies are going to have to take.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, first I did not say that we ignore the voices of Canadians any more than we ignore the voices of other nations around the world, but in the end we take this information and we do what we believe is in the best interests of the country and the world in the long term when it comes to these kinds of matters. I would say that I am not sure that the minister himself enunciated a position any different. The difference here is that we of course would be willing to put that position to a vote in the House of Commons.

I think the minister answered his own question. Nobody, including the allied coalition, thinks that we are prepared to enter a war today. Secretary Powell is returning to the United Nations Security Council for further discussions and we are going to receive further reports from Hans Blix and the UN inspectors team. We will make our judgments on the facts at that time, but like the position the government has finally come to, and clearly I believe, we do not rule out any further options as a sovereign country.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to once again address the issue of Iraq.

Let me first recap the position I laid before the House on October 1, 2002. I argued then that the time had come for Canada to pledge support to the developing coalition of nations, including Britain, Australia, the United States and others, in their determination to send a clear signal to Saddam Hussein that failure to comply with an unconditional program of inspection would justify action to remove Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction.

I noted that the position is justified in international law. The 1991 gulf war in which Canada participated did not end in an armistice. It ended in a ceasefire agreement in which Iraq agreed to a series of United Nations resolutions requiring the unconditional and unrestricted inspection of any and all Iraqi sites. Iraq has defied this and numerous other resolutions over the past 12 years, including non-compliance with the current UN resolution 1441.

I noted that there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein operates programs to produce weapons of mass destruction. Experience confirms this. British, Canadian and American intelligence leaves no doubt on the matter. Saddam Hussein's continued non-compliance and non-cooperation with the United Nations only confirms this information.

Finally, while I noted and I continue to note that Canadians do not want to see war, they do want to see Canada's national security interests and international values upheld. The limits of UN declarations are not the limits of Canadian foreign policy or our security needs. While Canada has always strived to work with the United Nations and other multilateral bodies, we have also pursued independent policies with our allies.

Based on these arguments, I gave the government the following advice in October.

First, should Saddam Hussein not fulfill an agreement to an unconditional and unrestricted access to UN weapons inspectors, Canada should stand with its allies in spelling out clearly to Saddam that failure to comply will bring consequences.

Second, should the UN Security Council issue a declaration to demand Iraqi compliance and should Iraq fail to meet those conditions, Canada should stand with its allies in telling Saddam once again that failure to comply will bring consequences.

Finally, should some UN Security Council members falter in re-emphasizing their own past declarations, Canada should stand with its allies in ensuring that Saddam understands once again that failure to comply will bring consequences.

Now, four months later, let me be very clear. Enforcing UN resolutions and getting Saddam to disarm could still be done without war. For this to occur, the international community must stand four-square behind the existing UN resolutions and we must understand the nature of Saddam Hussein. Ironically, it was our current Prime Minister who said this in 1998:

Make no mistake, Saddam's behaviour to date indicates that he will not honour diplomatic solutions so long as they are not accompanied by a threat of intervention. The least sign of weakness or hesitation on our part will be interpreted as incitement.... We believe that Canada cannot stand on the sidelines in such a moment.... Canada will be counted.

If the international community understood this better today, and if the Canadian government kept true to the Prime Minister's own words, then we would stand a good chance of avoiding war. Only with a credible threat of force behind resolution 1441 does the world stand a chance of avoiding war.

Instead, what we have are members of the international community failing to stand behind UN resolution 1441. They are failing to back the multilateral coalition including Britain, Australia, the United States, Spain, Italy and others, that is prepared to show Saddam a credible threat of force by redeploying in the gulf region.

Canada can most assist the United Nations process by standing unequivocally with countries prepared to act to remove Saddam Hussein and his weapons. The failure of Canada to stand with its allies can only lead to one of two possibilities.

The first possibility is that the entire international community decides not to enforce Security Council resolutions. This would leave the tyrant Saddam Hussein in place, but worse, he would be emboldened as a threat to the region, his own people and eventually to world stability. His known ties to terrorist organizations and his continued development of weapons of mass destruction would accelerate, leaving the world a less safe place and heightening the possibility of a repeat of September 11 or far worse.

We should be under no illusions. As the nation closest to the United States geographically, culturally and economically, we will inevitably be subject to the full consequences of any attack on the United States, if not also subject to any attack itself.

With or without such an attack, the failure to enforce resolutions to disarm Saddam Hussein will mean the UN itself will cease to be a credible body in world security affairs. This failure would directly parallel the failure of the League of Nations to address the emergence of global fascism in the 1920s and 1930s.

The second and more likely possibility of the failure of the world community as a whole to enforce disarmament of Saddam Hussein is that the allied coalition led by the United States and the United Kingdom goes to war with Iraq with the goal of disarming this evil regime.

This would force Canada to choose between its most important and closest allies and many of our other friends around the world. This would force us to choose war or to avoid participation in it.

There can be no mistake that war has been made more likely by the failure of some members of the international community to stand behind UN resolution 1441 and its predecessors in presenting a credible threat if Saddam fails to comply.

Let there also be no mistake that if the U.S. and the U.K. lead a coalition into Iraq, this will be fully defensible under existing UN resolutions, even if the UN does not sanction the action with yet another resolution by the Security Council.

What position should Canada take under such circumstances? More important, how should it decide its position? The answer: It should be clear and it should demonstrate leadership.

This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of public opinion.

We will take our position the way real leaders and great nations make decisions at such moments in history. Real leaders, and I do not mean brutal psychopaths like Saddam Hussein, real leaders like ordinary Canadians, do not want war. They never have.

My parents and my grandparents and their many friends and relatives of their generation have always told me that war is at worst horrific and at best a terribly inadequate way of dealing with the problems of humanity. They also told me that Canadians have nevertheless gone to war many times. In fact, they remember when Canadians were among the leaders in war, when it became the only option for the long run security of Canada and the world.

In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade.

This is wrong. It is not fitting with the greatness of our history or with our standing as a nation. We need to be standing through tough times and taking tough decisions.

We in the Canadian Alliance will continue to take tough public positions and urge the necessary military preparations that make the avoidance of war possible. I can only urge and pray that our government will do the same.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with close attention to what the Minister of Foreign Affairs had to say. I noticed that he went to great lengths to say that the government has not changed its position. However, I could produce a whole series of quotes over the past two months not only illustrating such changes, but particularly in the tone. The tough and clearer tone that the minister employed tonight is somewhat refreshing.

The Canadian Alliance has asserted that we should be working more closely with the American and British allied coalition on putting maximum pressure on Saddam Hussein to disarm. We have called for participation in the predeployment exercises. The government appears to date to have rejected that position. However, I note that the minister talked about consultations between the United States and Canada and I forget the exact wording, but on military preparations.

Is the minister in effect saying that the government is involved in a limited form of predeployment activity?

[Political Financing, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important topic. I wish we were dealing with the issue of campaign finance reform and electoral legislation as part of a broader agreement between the parties and, frankly, on the basis of the issue of fairness to all players.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the government is bringing in legislation because of problems in the Liberal Party's image around corruption and scandals, and because of the struggle for power within the Liberal Party itself. Some of the ideas in the bill are half thought out and, as we know, have divided support even within the government caucus.

The central idea proposed is that we replace corporate and union contributions as the basis for financing political parties with forced funding from taxpayers. Our view is that this solution is worse than the problem.

If shareholders and union workers do not want their funds to be used to fund particular political parties, why should they be forced to do so as taxpayers?

If political parties depend on money from corporate CEOs and union bosses, why should they not get the money directly from those individuals and from others who share those points of view? Pointing out a minor flaw in the legislation, why should they not be able to fund parties even if they have firms of their own, their own personal holding companies, why would they not be able to fund parties through those vehicles if we are talking about their own money?

We should point out that a large amount of public money goes into federal political parties. We estimate that about 60% of the funding of federal political parties is already coming from taxpayers. Proposals in the legislation would take that number to at least 80%, if not higher.

I should point out that in opposing the legislation the Canadian Alliance is speaking from a position of principle. Even for us, we are not naive, a lot of what the government proposes would be in the short term interests of the Canadian Alliance. We, like all parties, would stand to gain money from this arrangement. In the long term our party and the system will be better if we get our money freely from the people who do in fact support us.

The worst idea in the legislation is new direct stipends to parties themselves based on previous electoral performance. In this case not only would parties be isolated from the feelings they may have from their own former supporters, but frankly even people who never supported them would be asked to support the party, whether it be the Bloc Québécois or the NDP or ourselves.

Not surprising, with this particular provision, the biggest beneficiary would be the Liberal Party. This is fairly typical in a range of proposals in electoral legislation, particularly broadcasting, where the Liberal Party gives itself more time, both paid and unpaid time, than any other party is entitled to.

I would point out that some of these provisions are probably unconstitutional. However, we know that has never bothered the Liberals in this particular area of legislation.

Another bad idea is enhancing rebates. Rebates would be linked only to spending. Very few taxpayers understand that their donations to political parties are subject to tax credit. However, even after that process, when political parties spend the money, the political parties get rebates in many cases both locally and nationally from that additional spending. This is just an addiction to spending. Once again, our same reservation applies here. It is not linked in any way to whether voters want further support of these parties.

I would point out by just looking at the provisions of this legislation that we are already talking, in addition to things I have mentioned, an additional $30 million to $40 million of more public funding.

There are some good ideas in here however even those are flawed. Disclosure ideas are good for leadership races. I have said we support that. Unfortunately, provisions in here would make it difficult for people to enter nomination fights to challenge incumbents.

We talk about limits but there are no limits on contributions to private trusts of politicians, which is a very serious oversight. And, of course, there are no limits ultimately on the exposure of the taxpayers themselves to any of this funding.

Historically governments have sought consensus on electoral legislation. I hope we will do that in committee. The member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast will be handling this for us at committee. Some ideas here are worthy of acceptance, many should be discarded and some should be improved, but certainly the government cannot count on the support of the Canadian Alliance unless the philosophy behind unlimited taxpayer funding is changed.