Special Debate (Iraq) in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker,

Tonight, we have come together to debate an issue of vital national and international importance. On such occasions, the elected representatives of our people must be heard. People have to know where we stand. I look forward to hearing the views of my parliamentary colleagues. They will help to inform our decision-making.

I believe the responsibility of Canada tonight is solemn and sober. To show the strength of purpose of the international community. To stand firm in the face of provocation.

The government is adding Canada's voice to the international chorus calling on Saddam Hussein to comply fully with UN Security Council Resolution 687 and all other Security Council resolutions passed on Iraq since 1991. To do so or face very serious consequences. Tonight I want to lay out clearly -- before the people of Canada -- why we believe their government should support military action if he does not comply.

This gives us no pleasure, Mr. Speaker. Canada is not a nation that rushes to embrace the use of force. We do not lightly endorse military action. For us, it is always the last resort. Ours is a history of working to prevent conflicts. And to promote peaceful resolutions when armed conflict does break out.

Indeed, a diplomatic resolution is far and away our preferred resolution to this crisis.

At the same time, Canada has never been just a bystander in the world. We have been an active citizen of the world. And with citizenship comes responsibility.

On fundamental issues of peace and security, we have never hesitated to take sides. Thousands of Canadians have died this century to prove that point. It is why we joined NATO. It is why we helped draft and sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 50 years ago. And why we helped bring about an international treaty banning landmines just two months ago.

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing Canadians will not abide, it is the flouting of the clearly expressed will of the UN Security Council. And if there is one issue on which the Security Council has pronounced itself clearly, it has been on the threat that Saddam Hussein continues to pose to his neighbours -- and the world -- with weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical and biological.

This is not surprising if you look at the record of Saddam Hussein. What kind of leader willingly wages a war of terror on his own people? What civilized purpose can there be in slaughtering tens of thousands of Kurds. Or in wiping whole villages from the face of the earth.

Where was the wisdom in invading Kuwait -- only to bring down the wrath of the largest and most powerful military alliance since World War Two on your own country? What does it say about the humanity of a man who would expose his people to this risk all over again just to protect the horrible work he is doing developing chemical and biological weapons?

Of course, there is no guarantee that even taking strong decisive action will end the risk he poses to international security. But his own record shows that not taking action -- not standing up to him -- will only embolden him to commit further atrocities, to visit more terror upon his own people, upon his neighbours, upon the world. On this question, there is no doubt.

Saddam's resolve to develop and use weapons of mass destruction -- such as chemical weapons -- is a matter of record. He has used them on his own people. Anyone who doubts the seriousness of this threat should remember that. Equally well known are his continued efforts to frustrate the UN Special Commission also known as UNSCOM -- which was established by the UN to make sure that he complies with Security Council Resolution 687.

The purpose of that Resolution is clear: that Saddam must unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of his weapons of mass destruction. And that economic sanctions against Iraq would remain in place until UNSCOM declared that it had done so.

This was a condition of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War. And Saddam agreed in writing that UNSCOM would be given freedom of entry and access in its inspections. But from the very outset, Mr. Speaker, he has failed to honour this agreement. The denial of access to so-called presidential sights is just the latest example.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the incredible job that has been done by UNSCOM in the face of continued provocation. In these brave men and women -- experts in their fields -- Saddam has confronted determined adversaries.

Through seven years of lies and physical threats, they have carried out brilliant detective work. They have uncovered the truth. That his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs were much further advanced than we feared, or than Saddam would admit.

Thanks to UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Saddam's well-funded and advanced nuclear weapons program is essentially no more. Thanks to UNSCOM, all of Iraq's known chemical weapons and facilities have been destroyed. And thanks to UNSCOM, all of Iraq's known facilities and equipment associated with biological weapons have been destroyed.

UNSCOM has overseen the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons and 480,000 litres of live chemical agents. Anyone who doubts the seriousness of this threat should remember UNSCOM's discovery that Iraq had produced 8,400 litres of anthrax. Mr. Speaker, 100 kilograms of anthrax released from the top of a tall building in a densely populated area could kill millions of people. Because of Saddam's history of lies and deception -- and especially his obstruction -- UNSCOM has been unable to confirm that Iraq has in fact destroyed all of its weapons of mass destruction. The world needs reassurance from UNSCOM on this point. And UNSCOM has no confidence in Saddam's promises.

For seven years, he has lied, resisted and attempted to cover-up. He has been given every opportunity to live up to his international agreements and obligations. But nothing has secured his willing compliance -- not even the obvious incentive of ending the economic sanctions that have hurt the Iraqi people.

Mr. Speaker, time is running out on Saddam's deadly game of cat and mouse.

I must tell you that the government still strongly prefers a diplomatic solution. And we remain in contact with our allies in pursuit of that end. Military action is not imminent. But make no mistake, Saddam's record is that he will not respect diplomacy until and unless it is backed up with the threat of force or the application of force. Any sign of weakness or hesitation only encourages him further.

That is why, Mr. Speaker -- if it comes to that -- we believe that a military strike against Iraq would be justified to secure compliance with Security Council Resolution 687 -- and all the other Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq.

And we believe that Canada cannot stand on the sidelines at such a moment. Our allies, led by the United States, have asked that we support such a mission. They have asked for military support -- not for combat troops. But it would mean a Canadian presence in the action against Saddam Hussein. It would mean our armed forces would support -- in a material way -- the actions of this multinational initiative. It would mean that, when and if every other means fails, and action is taken to enforce the will of the Security Council, Canada will be counted. Not on the sidelines. Not isolated.

That is the decision we must make. I believe the choice is clear. I believe it is a choice dictated by the responsibilities of international citizenship. By the demands of international security. By an understanding of the history of the world in this century.

Tonight, we will hear from members of all parties. Your views are important, and will help guide the Cabinet tomorrow in its decision.

Moments like this are never easy. They require deep commitment, honest evaluation and respect for all views -- even those with which we do not agree. But important decisions are seldom easy. All we can hope is that we face them with the wisdom and understanding that they deserve. And with the commitment to see them through.