1991-01-15

[Stage Direction]
Prayers

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-90, an Act to amend the Bank Act (extension) and Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Northwest Territories Act.



['Hear, hear.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa,
December 21,1990 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Peter C. Cory, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 21st day of December, 1990, at 11.30 a.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General

A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-90, an Act to amend the Bank Act (extension)- Chapter 47; and
Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Northwest Territories Act -Chapter 48.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 11.45 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Order made Wednesday, December 19,1990, this House stands further adjourned until Monday, February 18, 1991, at 2 o'clock p.m.
At 11.48 a.m. the House adjourned, pursuant to special order.

Tuesday, January 15,1991


[Stage Direction]
Prayers

[English\

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to inform the House that, in accordance with the order of the House made Wednesday, December 19, 1990, and after consultation with the government, I caused to be published in an extra edition of The Canada Gazette a notice calling the House to meet this day.
In addition, on Sunday, January 13, 1991, I sent an electronic message to each member of the House containing the substance of that motion.

I also wish to inform the House that, in accordance with the government's representations and pursuant to Standing Order 55(1), I have caused to be published a special Order Paper giving notice of a government motion on the crisis in the Persian Gulf.

I now lay upon the table a letter dated Saturday, January 12, 1991 from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons in relation to that notice.


NEW MEMBER
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of the Hon. Jean Chretien, member for the electoral riding of Beausejour.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jean Chretien, member for the electoral district of Beausejour, introduced by the Hon. Herb Gray and Mr. Marcel Prud'homme.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua, member for the electoral riding of York North.


NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua, member for the electoral district of York North, introduced by the Hon. Jean Chretien and Mr. Sergio Marchi.
Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the serious international circumstances that prevail intrude on what is traditionally a light-hearted and respectful welcome to a new leader of any party and, of course, to a new Leader of the Opposition. I would have enjoyed that combination of tribute and welcome today. Most members would agree, and I know the Leader of the Opposition has already indicated to me that he would hope we err on the side of brevity this morning, which I will do.
On behalf of all members, I would like to extend a very genuine and a warm welcome to a very distinguished parliamentarian and a very fine Canadian, the Hon. Jean Chretien.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the very distinguished parliamentary career of the new Leader of the Opposition reaches back over a quarter of a century. His very distinguished career in House of Commons is evidence of the fact that the very nature of the Commons is such that while strong disagreements can, and will always take

House of Commons
place on both sides of the aisle, they do so with a fundamental respect for the rules of parliamentary procedure as opposed to any kind of violence, verbal or otherwise, that can inhibit and ultimately destroy parliamentary democracy.
I salute the hon. member for his contributions in the past. I know that we all look forward to his participation in debates of national and international significance.

As the new Leader of the Opposition is well aware, there is no shortage of challenges in this country. We are counting on the new member for Beausejour and new Leader of the Official Opposition to contribute in a way that is both constructive and useful to the debate on the major national and international issues of the day.

I would like to say on behalf of all members of the House of Commons that we welcome Jean Chretien back to the floor of the House. We wish him and his family well. We do not wish him all the success in the world, but as much as one can hope for the Leader of the Opposition. I remind him that he has already demonstrated extraordinary ability for that particular role. If he keeps it up, I know that Canadians will reward him further with a long stay in that particular position.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Good luck, Jean!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, with my colleagues, I have the pleasure of welcoming the member for Beausejour and the member for York North back to this Chamber.
On behalf of my colleagues I would like to congratulate both members on their successes. I would also like to take the opportunity of congratulating the Leader of the Opposition on his election as the leader of his party.
The member for Beausejour, as the right hon. Prime Minister has indicated, has much experience to bring this House, having been first elected in 1963, when Tommy Douglas was the leader of my party and John F. Kennedy was President. It is a time when we need that kind of experience in the House. We certainly welcome the wisdom that Mr. Chretien brings.

I am sure the Liberal leader will join millions of Canadian men and women who, with us, want to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in the Middle East.
The House was recalled for members to consider the most serious issue that has been before this House in many years. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a matter of party politics. It is about the future of Canada and the whole world.

For that reason we are particularly pleased-and I speak on behalf of my party and myself-to have the Leader of the Opposition with us in the House on this important and sombre occasion. While I wish him well, I can only wish him limited success.
As well, I would like to say that we will miss the interim leader, the hon. member for Windsor West, who certainly also brought much honour to the House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, while the Leader of the Opposition and I will share very different opinions at certain times, I can say with great certainty that, as Mr. Chretien has shown in the past, we will all serve the interests of Canada to our best. I know the Leader of the Opposition has that interest foremost in his mind.
Welcome to the House of Commons.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am greatly moved by this tribute from the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
As the Prime Minister said earlier, under normal circumstances this would be a pleasant opportunity for some spirited exchanges and a lot of good humour, all of which would show that despite that which separates us

here in this House, all members elected to the House of Commons have only one objective: the well-being of Canadians. Our objectives and viewpoints may often differ, and we may express them quite forcefully, but we have received from our constituents a mandate to show Canadians what the best way is to run this country.

I would like to say to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the New Democratic Party that for me to be back under these circumstances unfortunately takes away at a time when I would like to have some light exchanges. The Prime Minister is very good at that, as is the Leader of the New Democratic Party, but today is a difficult day and it does not call for that. I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
I would like to offer my congratulations to the new member for York North who has done something unprecedented.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He is probably the first member of Parliament in our history to walk down the aisle twice in the same Parliament. I think that is a very good precedent that will lead us to walk down the aisle very soon, but the other way.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would also like to say a few words about my election.

First of all, I wish to thank the hon. gentleman, Mr. Robichaud-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -who gave me the opportunity to take my seat today. I also would like to thank the voters in the electoral district of Beausejour who placed their trust in me at a crucial moment in Canada's history. I hope I will be a very good member for my constituents and I will try to be as good as my predecessor, Mr. Robichaud.
Routine Proceedings
Before I sit down, I would also like to thank the hon. member on my right who was the leader of this party for nearly a year and who did an exceptional job.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I fully intend to offer the Chair the same level of co-operation as did my predecessor from Windsor West and another predecessor, who is still a member of this House but unfortunately not in the House this morning, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. Both are very experienced parliamentarians who always understood the very difficult role the Speaker of this House has to play every day, in sometimes difficult circumstances.

In conclusion, I would like again to say thank you for the graciousness of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the NDP in welcoming me to the Chamber. I want to offer to both of them my collaboration. As I said, we are all here to serve the nation the best we can. We are here in a very difficult time. It is the time to get into the business of the nation, of war and peace that is troubling the nation.
For this welcome, to all members of Parliament I would like to say a very profound merci beaucoup.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there have been extensive consultations, carried out principally by the member for Scarborough Centre, and I think you would find there is unanimous agreement in the House to adopt, without debate, the following resolution which I would propose to move, seconded by my colleagues from Parkdale- High Park and Winnipeg Transcona:
Be it resolved
That this House condemns the brutal and unacceptable Soviet crackdown in Lithuania, and calls upon President Gorbatchev and

Government Orders
U.S.S.R. authorities to refrain from using further violence against the people and democratically elected governments of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

That this House appeals to the U.S.S.R. to adhere to its obligations under the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris, and to seek solutions consistent with respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms; and
That, recognizing the continuing Canadian government policy not to recognize de jure the annexation of the Baltic States, this House recalls its Resolution of March 1990 and continues to support the right of the Baltic peoples to determine their own future.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a short point of order.
Considering that we are about to launch into a very historic and important debate where the need for a maximum exchange of ideas is critical, there have been communications between the parties in terms of the proposal that we consider, after the first round of speeches by the leaders, entering into Committee of the Whole to maximize the positive and meaningful exchange between members.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would seek the unanimous consent of the House to move to Committee of the Whole after the first round of speeches by the leaders.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, there have been resolutions on this subject passed twice in the House and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, where that kind of discourse with officials and experts has been going on and continues to go on.
We thought it appropriate for this very important subject at this very important and critical time that the formal debate procedures of the House of Commons would be the best way to proceed. But, in terms of any other modifications to our Standing Orders or procedures that might expedite the kind of discourse, I would certainly be prepared to engage in discussions with House leaders about that at a future time.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I take the remarks of the government House leader as a negative and that the government does not feel at this time time that the proposal put by the New Democratic Party requires its approval.
I regret that immensely because the Committee of the Whole would have allowed members of the House to have a dialogue with ministers on the other side. It would have also allowed for repeated questions to be put to the government and a more democratic debate.
Mr. Speaker The hon. member for Kamloops has put a suggestion to the House under motions. At the moment, there is not consent and it is now my duty to continue with Routine Proceedings.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Martin Brian Mulroney: That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on August 2 Saddam Hussein launched a war against Kuwait. His invasion and subsequent annexation of Kuwait are grievous violations of the most basic principles of international law and of human decency. We are here today to reaffirm Canada's support for the United Nations' efforts to bring those violations to an end.
On October 23, the House approved sending Canadian Forces members, vessels, and aircraft to participate in the multinational military effort in the Persian Gulf.

On November 29, the House passed a further motion, supporting the United Nations and, I quote, supporting "the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions", notably resolution 678 co-sponsored by Canada and passed the same day at the United Nations. Resolution 678 gives Saddam Hussein one final opportunity to comply with the will of the world community as expressed in successive United Nations resolutions. The 47-day pause for peace provided for in resolution 678 ends tonight.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as we consider this matter on the floor of the House of Commons, efforts continue at the United Nations with a proposal that contains elements that are similar to ideas advanced in writing by Canada to the United Nations Secretary-General last week.
Diplomacy has been and is still being given every chance. Following U.S. Secretary Baker's unsuccessful meeting with Iraqi Foreign Minister Aziz last week in Geneva, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, made the second of two visits to the Middle East on this issue. His appeal to Saddam Hussein to leave Kuwait was callously rebuffed once again. Mr. Perez de Cuellar told journalists yesterday that he saw "no reason to have any real hope". He has reported that Saddam Hussein "never mentioned.. .that he was prepared to withdraw from Kuwait." No one could have failed to notice Saddam Hussein's contempt for international opinion, international law, and common decency.

United Nations resolution 678 authorizes member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement the relevant UN resolutions on this crisis and to restore international peace and security in the area.
Resolution 678, approved by this House on November 29, also requests all member states, including Canada, to provide "appropriate support" for actions taken in pursuance of this important goal.
Government Orders
The choice of peace or war remains Saddam Hussein's, and only his, as it has been for the last five and a half months; but time is very quickly running out on him.
Regardless of how they cast their vote last November 29, members on all sides of the House hope that hostilities will not be necessary.
It was clear to all of us then that we might have to impose the ultimate sanction on Saddam Hussein, military force, if he did not withdraw his forces illegally stationed in an innocent member state.
The United Nations made the threat of the use of force to, persuade Saddam Hussein of the seriousness of the UN's determination to see him out of Kuwait. It was not an empty gesture.
The question before Canadians now is a simple one. If Saddam Hussein does not withdraw peacefully from Kuwait and the use of force is required, where will Canada stand? On this simple question of right and wrong, will we continue to support the international coalition, or will we stand aside and hope that others will uphold the rule of international law?
There are very significant and understandable differences of opinion on such an important and sensitive international issue that has impacts of all kinds-many of them incalculable today-on the lives of many Canadians and many people around the world.
I understand and I respect the views of all members on all sides of this issue as they consider such a profoundly troubling and difficult issue and the manner in which it can be best confronted while keeping in mind the national interest and our international obligations.
The Government of Canada and I, as Prime Minister, have reflected very carefully on all aspects of this problem as I understand them. Our entire policy of the government is similar to policies of previous governments when confronted with similar challenges.
Our entire policy has been designed to achieve a peaceful solution to it. If, however, Saddam Hussein continues to reject the will of the United Nations, Canada will join with the United Nations in expelling him from Kuwait by force.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders


Martin Brian Mulroney: Kuwait may seem a remote place geographically and culturally, but so did Manchuria in 1931, Abyssinia in 1935, and Czechoslovakia in 1938. While, in the thirties, these were little known places, in the nineties they figure in our history books as the stepping stones to World War II. In each case what has been described by a leading historian as "a profound pacifism, an almost doctorinaire insistence on peace regardless of the circumstances" led the League of Nations to turn a blind eye to aggression-and the world paid a price in millions of avoidable deaths in World War
n.
What is happening in Kuwait has direct and substantial effects on Canada's interests. As a country with a comparatively small population, with two superpowers as neighbours, and with our own limited military capacity, Canada's most basic interest lies in the preservation of international law and order. The United Nations and its charter are essential to the rule of law and to the respect of the integrity of small countries by larger neighbours.

The architects of the United Nations-and Canadians were among them-were determined "to make absolutely certain", as Lester Pearson wrote in 1945, "that never again should an aggressor be permitted to strike down one nation after another before the peace loving nations of the world organize and take concerted action against it".
The fundamental purpose of the United Nations itself, as proclaimed in Article 1 of its charter, is "to maintain international peace and security" by taking "effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace".
That is in the founding charter of the United Nations itself. Those are the principles that we pledged to uphold when we helped found and subscribed to the fundamental precepts based on the notion of the respect for international law almost 50 years ago.

With the exception of Korea, the UN has been prevented by the cold war from either suppressing acts of
aggression or preventing them, as the Suez crisis, Vietnam, Afghanistan and the Arab-Israeli wars, among dozens of other conflicts, make clear.
Today, with the extraordinary unanimity that has accompanied the relaxation of east-west tensions, the authority vested in the UN by its architects-including Prime Ministers King, St. Laurent and Pearson-can be exercised by our generation to preserve international law and order.
Saddam Hussein's challenge raises the stakes for the UN. Because, while this crisis provides an opportunity for the UN to play the role Canada has always wanted it to play, regrettably it also provides an occasion for the UN to fail to do so. And if the UN were to fail to do so, a large part of the principles, objectives and efforts of 45 years of Canadian diplomacy would have been for nothing.
Our generation, having ignored the lessons of history, could be condemned to re-live some of history's darkest chapters. Saddam Hussein would become an example for other potential bullies, making the world an even more dangerous place than it is already. Nations would be left alone to defend themselves against aggression and a new arms race would be launched.
The UN-designed to prevent a return to the rule of the jungle-could go the way of the League of Nations, and this at a time when international problems-from the environment to human rights to debt to development to drugs to the protection of children-can only be resolved collectively, and when a credible, effective UN has never been more necessary.
These are not abstract issues to Canada. They are not someone else's business. They are direct, vital Canadian interests, and they are engaged fully in this question. The UN cannot be allowed to fail at this critical moment in history.

The argument is made by some that Canada should hold itself back now in order to play a peacekeeping role later. Were Saddam Hussein to succeed in his annexation of Kuwait, he would be in a position to threaten the entire Middle East, and he is in the process of threatening individual nations as we speak.
January 15, 1991

With the time and the wealth he would acquire, he would add further weapons of mass destruction to his arsenal, including in all probability nuclear weapons. In what position would this put his neighbours? After Iran and Kuwait, what would be his next target? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Would we hold ourselves back again, waiting for the latest atrocities to end so that Canada might then be invited in as part of a peacekeeping force?
Saddam Hussein has threatened directly to attack Israel with weapons of mass destruction. In the face of extraordinary provocation from Iraq, as evidenced by Foreign Minister Aziz' deplorably aggressive threat from Geneva last week directly to mount an assault on Israel, Israel has demonstrated remarkable restraint.
Should Saddam Hussein move against Israel, would we still hold ourselves back in the hope that we would be called in later to help keep what is left of the peace in what is left of the Middle East?
This course is a prescription for neither wisdom nor responsibility and it is not a course that Canada should follow.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is also argued that a peacekeeping role would be more in keeping with Canada's traditions. There is no reason at all, none whatsoever, to believe that a peacemaking role now disqualifies Canada for a peacekeeping role later.
Participation in the Korean War did not prevent External Affairs Minister Pearson from helping to create the United Nations peacekeeping function. Membership in NATO and NORAD has not prevented us from participating in every United Nations peacekeeping operation but one since the beginning of the international organization, and supporting right over wrong in the Persian Gulf does not preclude a peacekeeping role for Canada there following hostilities.
Like all Canadians, we are justifiably proud of Canada's peacekeeping traditions. But peacekeeping is only part of Canada's traditions. Standing firm for what we believe in and fighting if necessary is also a Canadian tradition and one that we remember most solemnly every November 11.
More than 1,700,000 Canadians participated in World Wars I and II and in Korea; 100,000 graves in Europe and Asia that bear silent but eloquent testimony to the courage and will of Canadians to stand for what we believe is right.
Government Orders
A terrible wrong is being committed by Saddam Hussein and I believe it is a terrible wrong which, if unchecked, could lead to horrific consequences for other nations in the region and indeed the entire world. A terrible wrong is being committed by Saddam Hussein, and I believe and this government believes that it is the moral duty of the international community to stop him now.
His motives in attacking Kuwait were self-aggrandizement and greed, nothing more difficult than that to understand: greed, money, territory, access to the sea, greed. That is the reason that for the first time one Arab state invaded another, a peaceful neighbouring state that had co-operated freely and generously with its neighbour.

To confuse international opinion, he has attempted to link the Persian Gulf crisis with the Palestinian issue. No one believes he invaded Kuwait to help the Palestinians. Everyone can see he is trying to rationalize his invasion of Kuwait after the fact and to undermine the multinational coalition now facing him. His attempt to portray the occupation of Kuwait-and the atrocities and murders he perpetrated on other Arabs-after all, he is the one who initiated such violence against his Arab neighbour-as somehow advancing legitimate Palestinian interests and concerns is both beyond understanding and beneath contempt.
Since we last debated this crisis in November, we have received the Amnesty International report detailing the extent of murders, rapes and brutalization in Kuwait. Tbrture and executions of non-combatants, including young children, have been wide-spread and accurately reported by the Amnesty International officials. I urge all members of this House to read this eye-opening and distressing report. Thousands of people have been subjected arbitrarily to arrest and detention. Hundreds of thousands of people have been forcibly evicted from Kuwait. A systematic effort is being ruthlessly carried out to erase the identity of a nation.
Notwithstanding these atrocities, some still make the argument that economic sanctions should be given more time to work. That is an interesting point of view and I look forward to hearing what the members think of that for, in my opinion, the most fundamental question we must ask ourselves is will sanctions alone work? The sanctions and the naval and air blockades have succeeded in stopping a great deal of Iraq's foreign trade. There

Government Orders
is no doubt about that. They are also unquestionably having an impact on economic conditions and living standards within Iraq. Iraqi oil production is down substantially. At the same time, there is clearly leakage of foodstuffs and components through the embargo.
An appropriate question is, how much time will it take for sanctions to work: six months, sixteen months, sixty months? Obviously, no one knows. The essential point in regard to sanctions that we all must remember is that Saddam Hussein has demonstrated limitless tolerance for the suffering of his own people.
This is a man who put his nation through eight pointless years of a war that took almost a million lives. It was so pointless, in fact, that in August he gave back almost everything that he had gained from that eight-year war with Iran in order to purchase Iranian neutrality in this particular conflict to make sure that he was not attacked from another flank. Eight years of extraordinary suffering and devastation inflicted on two countries, hundreds of thousands of young lives lost, and whatever was gained was turned back in an instant to procure the neutrality of somebody who might attack him while he was engaged in attacking an innocent Arab neighbour.
While industrial production is down substantially because of shortages of imported goods, Saddam Hussein will always ensure that the Iraqi armed forces are guaranteed the absolute top priority to key commodities. He will not hesitate, as the evidence of history clearly indicates, to pass on any amount of suffering and deprivation to his own people. Their well-being and security is clearly the furthest thing from his mind. But there is no evidence that sanctions have caused a groundswell of public discontent.
In fact, there is no reason to believe that the sanctions are having the desired effect at all. The desired effect is not to inflict damage on the armed forces tomorrow morning, but to get Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait by tonight. His objective is different from ours. We want him removed from Kuwait and he very much wants to stay there.
There is every reason to believe, based on his most recent statements last night and this morning and confronted with the extraordinary resolutions of the United Nations, that he has not the slightest intention, at least not so far, to indicate that he will respect and honour the commitments of the United Nations. He is determined to stay. He shows every sign of trying to out-wait the international community in the hope that events sooner or later will split the United Nations coalition.
Given the volatility of world affairs, especially in the Middle East, his gamble might very well work. In weighing the arguments in favour of using force, it must obviously be conceded that the risks and costs of a war are literally incalculable but that they would certainly be substantial in lives and resources. How risky and how costly would depend on a number of factors. How long would the war last? How strongly would the Iraqi forces resist? Could war be limited to the Iraq-Kuwait theatre or would it spread? How much damage would the environment sustain?
These are fundamentally important questions which I acknowledge. Unfortunately, there are no firm answers from anyone anywhere to these questions at this moment.
But while we concern ourselves and properly so with these questions, we must also guard against the tendency to regard waiting as cost-free. The fact is that there are also absolutely incalculable costs to waiting. The destruction of Kuwait continues unabated. An entire nation is being systematically dismantled and destroyed before our very eyes and human rights abuses continue at a pace and on a scale with few precedents in modem times.
Furthermore, the international economy is being damaged, and the poorest people in the Third World are the most affected. The funds that are paying for a massive military presence in the gulf are not available to the fledgling democracies of Eastern Europe, with potentially critical consequences for their futures.
And all the while that we wait for sanctions to work, the Iraqi defences become increasingly formidable. If it requires hostilities to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, the costs in terms of casualties among the coalition partners, including Canada, probably increase with every day and every week that passes. So, while a war is certain

to be very costly, waiting to see if sanctions will work is very costly as well.
If sanctions failed at the end of the given period of time-16 months, 36 months, whatever-what then would be the guarantee that the coalition would still be united and able to fight 16 months down the road, let alone 60? And fight for what? Fight for the integrity and respect of the United Nations without which a civilized world cannot exist.
Were Saddam Hussein to succeed, the costs to Canadian interests-and I define Canadian interests very clearly to include the discrediting of the United Nations, the distortion of international order, the trampling of human rights-and the impact on the world economy would be unacceptable.
I have heard it said that Canadian interests are not engaged. When the United Nations is discredited, when a member state is invaded, when human rights are being abused, when people are being slaughtered, I say that Canada's rights and Canada's interests are very much engaged and must be defended.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: For all these reasons, the government believes that Canada should continue to support the United Nations in taking all possible measures to cause Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.
Some allege that the government is simply following the lead of the United States administration on this issue. This is perhaps the most tired and threadbare accusation of all, because as Prime Minister Pearson wrote derisively in his memoirs: "a sure way to get applause and support at home is to exploit (Canadians') anxieties and exaggerate (their) suspicions over United States power and policies", and Mr. Pearson was right.
It should not be surprising or offensive to anybody that the views of free nations often coincide. In fact, in this case the views of all leading western nations led by governments of very different political stripes, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, France, the United States, and Canada, are in harmony.
Why not? We all share the values of liberty, democracy and equality before the law. Our institutions all draw
Government Orders
their validity from the free expression of the wills of our people. In foreign affairs, we all stand for the respect of international law.
It is certainly not surprising to members of this government that in light of the stakes on this issue these democracies, leading western industrialized democracies, all back the United Nations very strongly.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Canada worked hard to persuade the United States to work within the United Nations and to forgo unilateral action. The international coalition knows it must now be prepared to stand up for what is right.
Bob Hawke, the distinguished Prime Minister of Australia and leader of the socialist party in his country, the Labour Party, in weighing the same considerations we are weighing today, told his Parliament on December 4:
-if conflict occurs of a kind which is contemplated and authorized by the (United Nations) resolution, (Australian) ships will be available to participate fully in actions with the allied fleet-

Francois Mitterrand, President of France and leader of his country's Socialist Party, has made clear his country's position when he said, and I quote: "France considers a complete withdrawal from Kuwait to be an inviolable principle. Moreover, (France) holds that the January 15th deadline cannot be postponed or extended for any reason whatsoever". The President of France concluded that: "If the conditions that have been set are not fulfilled, then France will be doing its duty."

In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Major has been equally clear and consistent on this point.
Mr. Neil Kinnock, the Leader of the Opposition in the United Kingdom, said last week that his party, the socialist party, the Labour Party of the United Kingdom, "will not, in the interests of distancing ourselves from the government, distance ourselves from our forces or from our obligations to the United Nations".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders


Martin Brian Mulroney: We know now that both chambers of the United States Congress have voted to support the administration in the implementation of UN Resolution 678 to get Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, Canada's policy from the beginning has been a two-track policy: working relentlessly for peace, but preparing for hostilities if diplomacy failed. In fact, the record will show that from the day Iraq invaded Kuwait we have carried on very extensive, diplomacy designed to find a peaceful solution to this crisis. We have consulted widely in the region, and elsewhere, promoted the importance of the UN as the instrument of the world's response, urged a prompt withdrawal by Iraq, and counselled prudence on our allies. A full outline of all of our principal efforts since last August will be set out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he speaks in the debate later today. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that we, in Canada- as I believe every member of this House will recongnize after having heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs-have done everything possible to promote a peaceful outcome to this crisis.

No one wants a war, least of all those to whom it falls to fight. I am sure that I speak for every member of this House and for all Canadians in expressing my deepest admiration for the dedication, the professionalism, and the courage of the Canadian service men and women in the Persian Gulf today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am sure that whatever our policy views, whatever differences we may have from time to time, we in this House will be unanimous in supporting these outstanding and courageous men and women. They are there in the defence of the values and interests of all Canadians. They deserve the country's gratitude and support. Both they and their families have the prayers of all members of the House for a safe return.
If war comes, Canadians will be at risk.

Saddam Hussein has openly and blatantly threatened to use weapons of mass destruction in the region and to
sponsor terrorist activity abroad as well. We have, therefore, advised Canadians that they should defer travel to the region and, if they are already there, to consider leaving now. CSIS and the RCMP have increased their levels of alert.
On this point, I want to reassure Iraqi Canadians that they will not be subject in any way to illegal surveillance or unwarranted detention, as was the case in regard to other citizens during World War H That lesson fortunately has been learned in this country.
The House has been recalled today, in these serious circumstances, to permit members to express themselves on the Gulf crisis in the full knowledge of the facts and of the government's position on them. We are asking that the opposition join, if possible, in re-affirming Canadian support of the UNin securing the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. This procedure is consistent with our tradition in the past.
In 1939, in equally serious circumstances, the then Leader of the Opposition stated in this House for example-no comparison is perfect of course, but I mention it as an example-that: "We are going through a very grave crisis,... it is no exaggeration to say that this is a war for the preservation of human liberty. So far as my party is concerned... there will not be... anything in the way of political manoeuvring or captious criticism."

In June, 1950, one of the most distinguished servants of this House, the Hon. Stanley Knowles, speaking on behalf of his party on the Korean crisis, pledged his party's "complete support of the principle of collective security and their readiness to carry their support of that principle into all it may involve".
Mr. Knowles went on to say that "the government has the concurrence of all of the groups in this House in its readiness to support the action"-the military action as it then was-"taken by the United Nations. That is clearly our obligation and that way alone lies hope." Mr. Knowles concluded by saying on the floor of this House, "If we can deal with this present crisis on that basis and demonstrate the effectiveness of collective action for peace we may yet achieve much more in that direction than at times we have dared to hope".

As it was in 1950, so it is today in 1991. The government is acutely conscious of the gravity of the situation. Canada is a peaceful country. Canada Day is an occasion for family gatherings and friendship and not for bombast and military parades. Canada is a country that stands for decency and peace and we are also a country that stands for principles, respect for law, freedom, and human dignity.
The fundamental truth in this debate is that if we want peace we must defend these principles for which the United Nations stands. We must be prepared to stand up for what is right. To do otherwise is to signal to Saddam Hussein and to all other potential aggressors that the United Nations is incapable of responding effectively to aggression. No moral superiority accrues to those who stand on the sidelines and let others defend their principles. Canada is a peaceful country, but Canada is neither a neutral country, nor a country that expects a free ride.
Most members of this House, including me, are too young to have had personal involvement in war. All of us, however, know the devastation that war has brought to too many nations and the sorrow that it has visited upon too many families in this country alone. As a result, for successive governments over decades, the avoidance of war has been the principal thrust of Canadian foreign policy. Over the decades Canada has made contributions to the cause of peace that have been substantial and effective. But we have always known, as Canadians, that peace comes to those who are willing to defend it.
Indeed, it is because our parents and theirs courageously resisted aggression in the past in places far away, that we today are members of this democratic parliament in a free and an independent country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we honour that heritage and we respect noble Canadian traditions of valour today by standing firm in support of the United Nations and all the hope and the promise that a rejuvenated and strengthened United Nations brings to the entire world.
I believe that we honour that heritage and respect noble Canadian traditions today by standing firm in support of the only international institution that can
Government Orders
guarantee a durable peace in the world. If anything can, it is the United Nations and we must stand today in helping the United Nations to suppress aggression against an innocent member state. That has been Canada's tradition over decades and I believe that remains Canada's obligation today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I rise in this House today, I am saddened and concerned, as I believe all Canadians are at this time. We may be only a few hours away from a conflict, a war in the Persian Gulf.

A long and dark shadow, a shadow of death, hangs over the Middle East. A long and dark shadow, a shadow of death, hangs over hundreds and hundreds of Canadian women and men in the Middle East today. Therefore, today is a day for calm and it is a day for quiet deliberation.
Our duty is to promote peace, not war. The clock is ticking. There are only a few hours ahead of us. So all of us must move with caution, we must move with care.
I would like to say to the Prime Minister that we are not debating at this time the support of the UN. We all support the UN.


Some hon. members:: Right on.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Today, we are debating war and we are debating Canadian participation in a war.
The problem we all face is why the Prime Minister has not chosen to ask the real question of the House today. This is the question with which the country is faced: Should Canadian troops participate in a war, perhaps at midnight tonight, between Iraq and the United States? That is the question we are facing at this moment and it is the question that we have to answer.
We all supported the government up to a point last November. On August 2, the Security Council of the United Nations passed resolution 660 after the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. We approved that resolution of condemnation of the action of Iraq. On August 6, there was another resolution of the Security Council asking for economic sanctions against this country that had invaded

Government Orders
Kuwait. We in this House all supported the economic sanctions against Iraq.
Later, on August 25, there was another resolution of the Security Council to authorize military action to enforce the sanctions in the Gulf. We all supported that resolution. We all applauded the action of the UN at that moment because we thought that we were getting into a new order in the world, where it would be possible to have a collective action to act. We were happy. The cold war was over. There was a new hope that it was possible to act collectively to maintain peace around the world.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We were all of the opinion that sanctions were needed and we were all hoping that sanctions were working. But suddenly, in November, resolution 678 was presented. At that time we had anticipated what was going to happen and we decided not to support the government. We realized that the decision made in August was a decision that called for embargoes and sanctions and it was going to take time.
I can quote the President of the United States and his Secretary of State who in October told the American Congress, before their elections there, that the sanctions were working.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Later in the fall, the same thing happened. The head of the CIA, William Webster, talked about all the problems that the sanctions and the embargoes were causing to Iraq. He talked about more than 90 per cent of Iraq's imports and 97 per cent of exports having been stopped. Industrial production in Iraq has declined by 40 per cent since August. All that was said in October. He talked about the problem of putting exchange restrictions so that they had no more money to buy anything to maintain their equipment.
That was in the fall. But within a few days, we did not hear about sanctions or embargoes any more. The question was about the resolution with a deadline. We said at that time and we say again today that we strongly reject the use of force now-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -because the embargo has not been given enough time to work.
Since November, military deployment to put pressure on Iraq has developed a momentum of its own which has outpaced the march for a negotiated settlement. The January 15 ultimatum has reduced the room for diplomatic activity because an ultimatum is not negotiable. We predicted at that time that we would be faced with this problem today, that the ultimatum would not work.
I would like to clarify something that is very important to all Canadians and that is what the Security Council has authorized in resolution 678. It has given licence to individual members of the United Nations to use force after January 15. That was the resolution. But, it has not activated the UN charter provisions which regulate the use of force by the United Nations. This is a fundamental difference in the debate.
Of course we participated in the group that enforced the embargoes. Thirty-one countries have joined us in enforcing the sanctions and embargoes. But today we are on the verge of war. How many of those 31 countries will go to war if there is a war tonight at midnight? How many? Eight or nine? Certainly not 31. What is so frustrating is that after the presentation of the Prime Minister today we are not sure if we will be in that position if confronted with war today. That is what is so embarrassing for us.
Over the weekend, while debate was going on in the United States of America, we listened to senators and congressmen talk about war and the participation of their people in war. They talked about the American interests in the Middle East. They did not debate the United Nations. They debated the participation of Americans in a war.


An hon. member:: Right on.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Why are we not facing the problem in the same way here when there is anxiety in the Canadian people today? They do not know exactly what is going on. This is the problem.
For us, it is clear. The action of the government has put us in a position where it looks to me and members of

this party that the Prime Minister has not stated clearly, if there is a war tonight, whether or not we will be part of that war. It is unacceptable.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We said that military action is premature. We said that military action at this moment is unwise. It is very dangerous for long-term security in the Middle East and for the viability of the UN.
I would like to say to the Prime Minister that it is very, very easy to start a war, but it is very difficult to stop a war.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: My view and the view of my party is that it is premature to have military action today. We have to ask the United Nations Security Council to review and to report to the world on the effects of the sanctions and the embargo in an official, non-partisan way. But as the international body that can pass judgment as to whether these sanctions are working. We have not seen any official report from the UN so far.
Of course, if there is no war, our forces should stay there. They are present to enforce the embargo and the sanctions and they should be there. But if there is war tonight, tomorrow, or the day after-the minute there is war-there is no more embargo. The embargo becomes a blockade and a blockade is an act of war. If faced with an act of war, we say on this side of the House that it is premature and that our troops should not be involved in a war at this moment-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and our troops should be called back if there is a war, unless we decide to be in a war. But we have to have the time-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: After the cold war, we thought that we were entering into a new order in the world. We thought that military intervention would not occur because we believed that the international community could make sure that there would be no aggression tolerated and that the United Nations goals would be upheld. What is the fundamental principle of the United Nations? It is the peaceful resolution of disputes, not the initiation of wars.
Government Orders
Military action, so soon after we decided to take the course of sanctions and embargo, endorses the view that military action can be an instrument of preference and of early resort and not, as it should be, of last resort.
Why this war? What are our national interests in this war? When I listened to the debate which took place in the United States over the weekend, the Americans were not talking about the United Nations, as I said earlier. They were talking about American interests. Senators and members of the House of Representatives spoke and they divided very closely on this issue. I am sure, if there had been no ultimatum and if the President had not put the position so squarely for so long, that it is probable Congress would not have acquiesced to the resolution presented to it.
I say that the national interests of Canada are veiy different from the national interests of the United States.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Our national interests have been peacekeeping, a voice for stability, and a voice for independence in war, peace, and stability. We have always said that embargoes, sanctions, and diplomacy are preferable to bullets. We have to look back at what has happened in our history.
I am very pleased that the Prime Minister referred to some previous Prime Ministers of this land.

When war broke out in Korea, we did get involved but under the flag of the United nations. That is a basic distinction from the position now taken by the Prime Minister. The Security Council did not set up a United Nations contingent. It authorized countries to go to war with Iraq, but it did not ask any country to go to war with Iraq.
In 1956, when the Suez crisis took place, Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Pearson, respectively Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs, took a fundamental position which has guided Canada's international policy ever since. What did they decide? Surely it was not easy for Mr. St. Laurent to tell France and Britain that the era of empires was over, but he did. It was then that Mike Pearson advocated before the United Nations the theory which we have always followed, namely that Canada and the United Nations must be agents of peace, and it was the first force set up by the

Government Orders
United Nations to maintain peace. Canada was not only the initiator but also the first participant. Mr. Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because he had taken that initiative.
I want to tell the Prime Minister that during the weeks preceding this debate I too tried to think what Mr. St. Laurent would do, and how Mike Pearson would act if he were here today. What is the tradition of this country, and what is the tradition of this Party? I came to the conclusion that in such circumstances, Mr. Pearson and our country's tradition require that we pursue our efforts to the end since we are committed to uphold the embargo and the sanctions and to make sure that all such avenues have been explored and all democratic efforts made. Only then can we resort to war.

I would say to the Prime Minister that with his attitude today, he is no Mike Pearson. Mr. Pearson would not have done it this way.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: After 1956 every prime minister of this country maintained that position of independence. Canada may not be a very powerful nation, but our main role would always be to maintain a credibility which would enable us to keep waring parties apart and work towards peace. This has always been the doctrine followed by Mr. Diefenbaker, Mr. Trudeau, and Mr. Pearson because that is the kind of role we Canadians have always wanted to play.
What should we do today? First, the war option is still open, and it will be tomorrow. As I said earlier, there may be circumstances where war may be the only option, but for the time being we must continue to seek peace and make sure that the sanctions, the embargo, the isolation, and the international community will make the Iraqis stand so alone that they will not be able to survive. Unbelievable though it may seem, the sanctions did work in October and even in November. What has happened? Now the election is over in the United States, suddenly sanctions no longer work. That is our point.
We feel that sanctions should be maintained for a number of months, six months or even twelve. What's the matter with maintaining the status quo'l With the troops we have in the Middle East today, plus the embargo, we are convinced that Iraq, if it is not attacked now, will not attack at all. So there would no war. After six or twelve months of embargo and sanctions, a small country with the whole international community against it will not be able to go on. Where will they find the equipment to replace their own if they have problems? Where will they get the materiel they need to wage war if they are completely isolated? And if it takes six months more, what is the difference?
There have been situations where countries were invaded, unfortunately, and there have been others when the United Nations deplored these invasions. When the Chinese invaded Tibet, this fact was deplored by everyone, by the whole international community, but we did not intervene. What did we do when the Russians invaded Afghanistan? We deplored this action, but there were many like it. There were also human rights violations in those two countries and there was loss of life. We did not intervene.
In Cyprus, we censured what was done by Ibrkey but we did not go and invade that country. We did not participate. I could go on to quote dozens of similar cases. Many UN resolutions were not observed, but we did not go to war because of that.
I think that at this point we must give peace a chance. The Security Council should meet again, and we must ensure that the embargo and sanctions are maintained and reinforced, if necessary. Tonight, war is useless, it is dangerous and it will not solve the problem.
I simply wanted to say that there will be more situations like this one, and that we must be extremely careful. If every time there is an invasion, every time the rights of individuals or citizens or certain republics are destroyed by invastions, we have to go to war, does this mean we should fight in Lithuania? Today, it is the same problem, up to a point-


Charles Joseph Clark: It's not the same problem at all.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes it is, up to a point.
January 15, 1991

When faced with the possibility of war, there is a fundamental question we must answer. I maintain that the government does not, in the circumstances, have the moral authority to put this country into a war situation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Is the Prime Minister rolling the dice again, this time with the lives of young men and women in the Middle East? Is he gambling with world peace?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this government has the moral authority to bring Canada into war today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have the feeling that the Prime Minister is rolling the dice again, but this time with the lives of the young men and women who are there and who might go there without giving a real chance for peace. This is the problem we are faced with.

A war entails enormous expenses and high risks. How many Canadians will lose their lives? How many billions of dollars will be wasted in an exercise which may prove useless, or at least premature? It might cause a lot of upheaval. What will happen to the oil situation? What will happen to the world economy? The Prime Minister refered to that earlier. What will be the results for the developing countries if all the resources of mankind are spent waging a war, rather than implementing policies which could improve these peoples' wellbeing?
I ask the Prime Minister, before committing Canada to a war, to remember that our country's role has always been to pick up the pieces whenever warring nations chose war over peace.
Mr. Speaker, our caucus held a meeting yesterday, probably the very best I have ever attended, and after four hours of deliberations, all those present unanimously felt that it would be premature to wage war now and we are opposed to war at this time.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Let us give a chance to sanctions. Let us give a chance to the embargo. Let us give a chance to peace diplomacy. This is the role which the government should play now. I am afraid, however, that the govem-
Govemment Orders
ment made commitments a long time ago and now has to pay the price. Canada's position is and must remain an independent one, one which should use to the utmost all avenues for peace. If one day all these recourses should prove inadequate, if there must be war, a war under the aegis of the United Nations, Canada will assume its responsibilities and support the United Nations. Today, this would not be a war under the flag of the United Nations but a war waged by an unknown number of countries, and Canada took the position in 1956 that we shall not be involved in a war if it is not under the flag of the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat in English what I said in case some people did not understand.
We are opposed to this war at this moment. Canada has taken the position since 1956 that we shall not be involved in war if it is not under the flag of the UN. If there is a war tonight, it will not be a war under the flag of the UN. It might be under the flag of a very friendly neighbour, but it will not be the flag of the UN. The time has not yet come for the UN to move in a war situation. Let us give peace a good chance.
I move:
That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the
word "Kuwait":
"through the continued use of economic sanctions, such support to exclude offensive military action by Canada at this time."


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the hour I would like to propose, as a courtesy to the Leader of the New Democratic Party who will speak next, that the Chair not see the clock at one o'clock and that the Leader of the New Democratic Party be given whatever time she requires to complete her remarks.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the House has before it today a motion reaffirming support for the United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by any country after the deadline of today and an amendment by the Liberal Party. While the motion of the government does not clearly state so, we must be clear in this House about what we are discussing. What we are discussing very clearly is whether Canada supports a declaration of war.

Government Orders

The question is purely and simply this: Is Canada going to support a declaration of war?

This is therefore a serious and historic debate. We have a grave responsibility to the Canadian people to be thoughtful and constructive, to articulate Canadians' concerns, and to choose a course which serves the interest of Canada and the world and which reflects the values of Canadians and the kind of contribution that Canada can best make to the world order.
I and my party have been listening to Canadians for the past weeks, in fact since this crisis began; to experts on international affairs; to foreign leaders both in and out of government; and to the statements of the Canadian government as the crisis has worn on. Today we have listened with care to the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
Our conclusion is this: War would be a tragedy, of unimagined scope. It must not be the next option or the second or the third option. War must always be the final option, the last resort.
It is our belief that, not only would war have severe political, economic, environmental and human costs that would be intolerable and unimaginable for all involved, but a so-called victory would not achieve the goal of peace. It would be as Dr. Litbach, a commentator from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies who has studied the Middle East, has said: "All we would do by war is give the wheel of regional conflict another turn". In other words, a military victory would not ensure peace but rather would lead to greater instability, greater hostility, greater danger, and greater conflict in the Middle East region.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I rise therefore today as leader of my party and on behalf of millions of Canadians to say no to the government's proposal to support war, no to an offensive military role for Canada, and no to Canadian participation in an unnecessary and deadly war.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that today we are not talking simply about the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. No one here can deny that this invasion, this brutal occupation of a neighbouring country, is unacceptable.
From the outset, my party has squarely condemned the actions of Saddam Hussein. We have demanded and continue to demand Iraq's full withdrawal from Kuwait. We will continue to explore all possible avenues and we will not be satisfied until we succeed.
Our condemnation of Iraq reflects the principles that guide this party. The history of the New Democratic Party shows that we have always condemned, and always very forcefully, a country that attacks another country. We have supported the use of diplomacy, political action and economic sanctions in order to put an end to these wars of aggression.

Let us be clear that there are three options before us and that there are three options to resolve the dispute: first, sanctions to isolate the aggressor and to make it economically impossible to continue that aggression; second, diplomatic efforts to deal with Iraq and to address continuing Mid-East problems; and, third, war.
As politicians who must be faced with surely the most important decision that most of us will ever make in our political life or have ever had to make, we must ask ourselves whether, on the basis of all rational evidence, economic sanctions and diplomatic efforts have been exhausted, whether we are truly convinced that no option but war exists and that the attendant risks of war are now the only option.
I recall that Martin Luther King, whose birthday is today, once said about Vietnam that the bombs that explode on the foreign battlefield also explode at home. Is there anyone who does not believe that the bombs dropped in the Middle East will not indeed explode in every community in the world?
Our foreign policy must reflect Canadian values, respect for international law, the promotion of social justice and human rights, and the pursuit of peaceful means of conflict resolution. Canadians are a caring and peaceful people, but we do not shirk from our responsibility. We do not shirk from our international responsibilities. We must not think that we have no role to play but
January 15, 1991

to accept what is determined elsewhere. We cannot simply be swept along by events that we accept are outside our control. As a middle power, we can have much more influence on maintaining peace than on winning wars.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: We have the moral responsibility to use whatever means we can to stop the madness.
In the case of Kuwait, New Democrats and Canadians have supported the international community and the Security Council resolution in the use of diplomatic pressures and economic sanctions against Iraq. We support the Canadian presence in the gulf, the role of our men and women there, and the enforcement of those sanctions.
My party has supported every United Nations resolution which advocated a peaceful resolution to the crisis. We have supported 11 out of 12 of the Security Council resolutions.
We have not, however, supported UN Security Council resolution 678 which imposes the January 15 deadline for Iraq withdrawal and which authorizes the use of force after this date. We opposed that resolution for a number of reasons. The January 15 deadline is an artificial and arbitrary deadline. There is no concrete reason why the possibility of war must increase exponentially on this date. The situation in Kuwait, however disturbing, has not changed or worsened significantly.
Seven days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the U.S. Senate committee found that Iraq had engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, in disregard to the international law. In that debate, the State Department of the United States opposed any sanctions or punitive measures against Iraq. In fact, the United States was subsidizing food imports only seven days before the invasion.
I say this to point out to those who are listening in the Canadian public that the international community has been aware for a very long time of the serious breaches of international law by Iraq but that the Foreign Relations Committee, of the Senate of the U.S., seven days before the invasion refused to take any action then, seven days later, it changed its mind.
Government Orders
I say it also to suggest that nothing is sacred about January 15. The situation was intolerable before Iraq invaded Kuwait. It remains intolerable, and what we must debate is how best we can find a resolution to this situation and to the middle eastern problems in general.
It has been said in relation to previous wars that ultimatums are issued, armies are mobilized, and leaders desperately trying to avert war find themselves bound by the timetables of generals. I suggest that this is exactly the bind that we as leaders are in now. All members of all parties are trying to debate-and I say this in a non-partisan way-and find a way to avert war, but we are binding ourselves to the motion of the government, to the timetable of the generals. We are not past generals fighting past wars. We are politicians who have to look to the future as well as the present, at the realistic role that Canada can play today and in the future.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Today I implore the government to step back and to regain perspective. There are options to war. There are choices. There is no reason why Canada should give its approval to a declaration of war today. Sanctions must be given a full chance. International affairs analysts have argued this point very effectively and have also argued that sanctions are working.

The U.S. Secretary of State for Defence, Richard Cheney, admits that by Easter, the Iraqi army will start being short of spare parts.
CIA head William Webster has said that the Iraqi airforce will be in trouble three or six months from now. In nine months, the rest of Iraqi materiel will be in bad shape.
According to information received from Iraq, essential services, including water, electricity and gasoline, are at risk. The country's economy is a shambles. Well-informed sources have stated that 90 per cent of Iraq's imports and 97 per cent of its exports have been affected by the sanctions.

Government Orders
Saddam Hussein will not be able to ignore the sanctions. His country will not be able to survive. We must be very patient and wait. If patience means saving the lives of Canadian soldiers or Iraqi children, it is worth it. If being patient means that mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters will not have to shed any tears, it is worth it.

Along with sanctions, Mr. Speaker, diplomatic efforts must also continue. No one doubts-and I am sure there is no doubt left after this week-that Saddam Hussein is a difficult man with whom to negotiate. We are not naive, but negotiate we must. We must find all of those openings which would make peace a possibility.
Our friends in the United States government refuse to consider any conditions for negotiation. But the anti-Iraq alliance is divided on this point. European and Arab nations appear much more willing to seek a negotiated way out.
American Congress persons, a number of whom I met with yesterday in Washington and colleagues I have spoken to in Europe, are much more willing to seek negotiation. We have new proposals from Yemen and France. They should be looked at seriously by Canada, and not rejected out of hand. Rather than following the forces of war blindly, Canada, has an obligation to align itself with those countries seeking peaceful resolutions.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: There are those, Mr. Speaker, who would argue that agreement to conditions of withdrawal means rewarding aggression. I suggest it means rewarding compliance.
There are those who argue that to agree to conditions of withdrawal means losing face. I do not accept that characterization, but I do say to those who do, if the choice is between losing face or losing lives, the choice should be perfectly clear.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Today the Prime Minister has said that Canada will join in using force against Saddam Hussein. He did not speak at length about the cost of war, or the implications of war. It is a disturbing subject, I quite agree. But surely it is our responsibility at least to raise these issues before the Canadian public.
There is widespread doubt that any war against Iraq would be limited in scope. There is much greater belief that in fact the war would spread to the Middle East and to many countries outside of Iraq and Kuwait.
There are more than one million soldiers in the Gulf, 8,000 tanks, 3,000 aircraft, chemical and biological weapons and, it is reported, over 1,000 nuclear warheads.
The impact of a war on the environment could be catastrophic. Projections have been that given a nuclear accident, or the threat of fire in the oil fields, fires could last for years with devastating consequences for the air, the ozone layer, and the climate here in North America and elsewhere.
Other analysts have said that, if our objectives are to preserve stability in the Middle East and the related advantage that stability provides for oil supplies from the area, then going to war will not preserve or further those objectives. Going to war will destroy those objectives.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the economic cost of war would be enormous. The rising price of oil would not only deepen our own recession, but take a terrible toll on the world's poorest countries.
The human cost, of course, the most important consideration, is impossible for many of us to grasp. We simply cannot know and we simply cannot project what might happen. It might be less serious than some people project; it might be more serious. Both military and political people are quite divided on that point, but we do know that there will be a human cost.
If we asked those people who served in the Vietnam or Korean wars, or those who have come to Canada as refugees about the reality of war, and if we should consider the war option before we are absolutely convinced that all other options will not work, we are sure what their answer would be. It is no surprise that the initiatives that are coming for peace proposals, for diplomatic proposals, are coming from those European countries which have felt war on their own soil and which, know by their very experience and in their souls what it means. We do not, except those people who have served in a war or who have come to this country as a result of a war in their own countries.
January 15, 1991

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
If we go to war now, Mr. Speaker, we will be haunted by each and every casualty. We will wonder if we had tried to wait for other options and if we had taken a pro-active approach to peace and not a reactive approach to war if that would have made a real difference.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: In concluding, I would like to make a suggestion. This dreadful war will cost us far too much. Worse, a victory will be no guarantee of peace in this part of the world. The defeat of Saddam Hussein in Iraq may make it even harder to achieve our objective: peace and security in the Middle East.
Look at the area, Mr. Speaker. There is no guarantee that the leader who would replace Saddam Hussein would be an improvement. If Iraq is destroyed, Iran may very well rise again as the dominant power in the region. If Iraq is destroyed, Tbrkey, Syria and Iran may decide to fight to control what is left of Iraq.
The Arab governments that decided to support the war will face the fury of their citizens. A holy war is a real possibility. Compare this scenario with the option of not going to war at all. If we wait, the worst that can happen by a year from now is that Iraq would continue to occupy Kuwait. I leave it to the House to decide which option is the riskiest and to choose accordingly.

The Prime Minister made the comparison to the League of Nations and also to the UN Charter which says that we are committed to working for effective and collective action. This debate is about not who is right but our version of what is effective collective action. The Prime Minister has said that doctrinaire insistence on peace is what led to the end of the League of Nations and to undermining the credibility of the League of Nations.
It is commonly argued that this crisis represents the first major post-cold war test for the United Nations, and I agree. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the crisis is about the future of the United Nations, and I agree. This is why we cannot allow the United Nations to endorse a move into war when all peaceful means have not been exhausted.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I would like to explain that further, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is an extremely important point about the choices that are before the international community today.
Surely success would not be measured by the ability to use the United Nations to legitimize war. It should be measured by the ability of the United Nations to prevent war.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, there has been much talk of a new and just world order. I am sure it is an objective that all of us in this Chamber share. But the rush to war will simply represent the same old response the same old way. If we do what we have always done and declare war without looking at all of the options, we will make the same mistakes of the past. But we will have done it under the United Nations. This is not hope for a new world order. A new world order looks at new solutions, new ways and effective co-ordinated international efforts that try everything to avoid war, to have patience and give time, to exercise every option, if that is what it takes.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The NDP is a party that has always supported the United Nations efforts, that has supported international co-operative action in international conflicts. If we cannot look back in one year or six months and say that the Security Council of the United Nations could not find a new way to settle disputes, we will not have found a new world order. We will simply be perpetuating the madness of the old world order.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: We are not debating today whether Saddam Hussein is taking evil action. He is. But to punish that evil and immoral action with tens of thousands of further mortalities does not make sense. It does not in any way diminish our sympathy, our sadness, and our outrage at what Saddam Hussein has done in Kuwait and what has been identified by Amnesty International.
War is not the answer today. War is not the solution. Canada has a role to support the United Nations charter, to seek effective collective action, and to participate in that. Canada has an important active role and not a reactive role.

Government Orders
I would like to suggest four broad options that should be pursued at this time. First, evidence suggests that sanctions are working. The continuing and tightening of economic sanctions-and there have been proposals in how those can even be further tightened-seems a very logical step at this point.
The furtherance of diplomatic efforts should be supported by the Canadian government. In fact, the Canadian government should be leading in these efforts.
Since 1983, the New Democratic Party has had as our policy that we must support international conferences on the situation in the Middle East. It is not a new idea that originates with Saddam Hussein, and let us stop pretending it is. Let us stop fighting over the words about linkage. Let us look at the reality because most of the Middle East believes that there are many outstanding issues beyond the actions of Saddam Hussein to be resolved. This party believes it and Canada should be supporting those initiatives.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Finally, we must develop a comprehensive strategy for conflict resolution in the region which includes every alternative to war. Such a strategy could include the settlement of border disputes through United Nations mediation or the International Court of Justice, promotion of democratization throughout the region, the establishment of a mechanism to reduce the arms trade and to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, and the negotiation of non-aggression pacts between nations of the region that could the framework for an over-all peace settlement.
The decision we are faced with today, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, may be the most difficult decision that we as politicians will ever have to make. People have spoken-and we listened to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition-with great certainty about their position. As the Prime Minister himself has pointed out, all political parties are not united on their position on this, in Canada, in Europe, and in the rest of the world. Therefore, it is not a partisan issue.
It is an issue of conscience and an issue of supporting the least destructive method to resolve conflicts. It is an issue of how we see our vision of the new world order. If Canada's vision of the new world order is simply to launch into a war without having assured every Canadian that every option by this government and by other governments has taken place, then we should all be very ashamed because we have offered nothing for the 21st century.
There are people of my party, social democrats, who have a different position than I. There are Conservatives, Liberals, and people of many other parties. In all honesty, I have to say that I cannot stand here and say with absolute certainty that my position that Canada should not participate in any offensive action cannot be challenged. I cannot say that I have all the wisdom. But, having looked at the history of the region and this issue, the events leading to January 15, and the consultations that I have had-with people in the U.S. and Europe, with my friends, colleagues and constituents, and with other Canadians,-one must take a stand and say that there is more to be done. We have not exhausted all of the options. War is not an option today on January 15, 1991.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: It is not a question of whether or not I stand with the government or our forces in the Gulf. Our forces are doing the job they were sent to do and doing it well. It is not whether or not Canada is a good ally or a good world citizen. We are. The issue is whether or not after we make the decision we are making today-the decision about whether Canada will support a declaration of war-we can live with ourselves and know we have made the right decision. Perhaps we will never know.
As I have said, I and my party believe that all options have not been exhausted and that we have to take every one. Until then, I and my party cannot and will not agree to a war.
This is a situation that none of us can see into the future or how we will be judged by history. We stand here today in many ways alone, before the people we represent and not just as political parties. For that reason, I would encourage the government and other parties to hold a free vote on this issue.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The arrogance of being able to say that even I, as a leader of a political party, am always right and my position is always right, in my view, is not leadership. It is dictatorship.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: If there was ever a more serious moral issue with which we have to deal, I do not know what it could be. It is for that reason that I make that point.
My heart is with all of those Canadian men and women who are now in the Middle East serving our country. My hope is for all of us today who will surely be judged by history on the decision that we take.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: It being past one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
The House took recess at 13.22 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, today we balance on the brink of war. No doubt every Canadian's thoughts and prayers are riveted on this issue. Later we politicians, with speeches in hand, will debate not UN resolutions, but war.
This is unlike any other debate. It should not be conducted in phrases that make us feel better or less terrified at the task ahead of us, for war is a final act in which a peaceful resolution is abandoned in favour of force, and the death and destruction that it ultimately brings in its pursuit of peace.
As we debate today, remember that participants in war are real. They are not numbers. They are young men and women. They have families, children, mothers, fathers and friends. They have committed themselves to serve their country, and in doing so have also committed their loved ones to the consequences of such service.
The situation in the gulf is not simple. It is real. I hope, and indeed pray, that the gravity of the reality of the choices before us are seen not in a partisan or clinical way, or one that protects us from the anxiety of our own decisions.
The debate today is one that takes into consideration the consequences of our decisions to act or not to act, but to have as our paramount concern those who serve and their families.
Most of all, I pray that all here are granted the wisdom to make the right choice.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute the Grain Safety Net Committee, consisting of some 34 producer and government representatives which has designed GRIP and NISA programs which target agricultural assistance more effectively, encourage sound management practices, and deliver similar benefits to farmers in all regions.
The Gross Revenue Insurance Plan, GRIP, will offer farmers both yield and price protection while the Net Income Stabilization Account, NISA will allow farmers to stabilize their incomes on an individual basis.
The Minister of Agriculture will soon introduce these improved programs which will provide a permanent, predictable and truly effective safety net. They are effective because they are based on individual rather than regional conditions, and predictable because support is calculated in the spring. Therefore, farmers will know before seeding the guaranteed revenue per acre for each crop seeded.


GUN CONTROL
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 1989, forteen families were sorely affected by Marc Lepine's action. The families of the victims from Polytechnique united to turn a personal tragedy into a movement to have the gun control legislation changed.
These parents have grounds for being concerned about the gun control situation in Canada and the proceedings of the committee would have been seriously lacking if it had not heard them.

I stressed the importance of these families' testimony and I am pleased to report to the House that the members of the committee reconsidered their decision and that the families of the victims of Polytechnique were invited to testify. As a parliamentarian interested in gun control, I am very happy I could help make their participation possible.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, the world stands today at the brink of war.
It is a matter of deep concern to people all around the world. We, in this House, are going to face a decision as to what Canada's role should be in that war. It is a difficult decision.
Canada has, in the past, been prepared to contribute to the defence of freedom. The terrible cost of a war must be weighed against the objective, taking into account that there is an alternative, that sanctions have every possibility of working. This morning there was a report in The Globe and Mail which stated that there is a nearly 100 per cent chance of success for sanctions. In that event, Canadian participation in a war would be an unspeakable crime and one which this House cannot endorse.



Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked and apprehensive today. The very real prospect of war has created an atmosphere of unreality and disbelief. Since the Suez crisis we, as a nation, have taken great pride in our role as peacekeeper to the world. Now we watch as our country's great prestige is being bartered for base coin.
Millions of Canadians join in this plea. Do not throw away 40 years of international goodwill. Do not send hundreds of young men and women into a wasteful war. Thke the path of sanity and sense. Sanctions are working. Let the embargo bring Hussein to a halt. If the bombs fall, take our people out of danger and show to the world that Canada seeks the peaceful solution. Maintain our
historical position as peacemaker, not warmonger. Refuse to countenance insanity. This is not a movie set, this is real. This life and death. Do not opt for death.
In the name of peace, in the name of justice and in the name of Canada, do not throw us over the brink.

For God's sake, give peace a chance!


LITHUANIA
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in recent days the world has reacted with disbelief at the violent acts of aggression imposed by the Soviet military on the people Lithuania and its democratically elected government. The threat has also been extended to Latvia and Estonia and yet President Gorbachev denies prior knowledge of these abhorrent acts.
Who is in charge of the Soviet Union? Mikhail Gorbachev or the military? What has become of the promised reform of the Soviet Union? Why has the Soviet Union reverted to force rather than negotiation to resolve the legitimate concerns of the Baltic States?
Canadian and, indeed, international assistance to the Soviet Union must be dependent on the answers to these questions. I urge our government to use every means at its disposal to impress upon the Soviet Union the urgency of an immediate peaceful resolution of this crisis.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, 6,000 Montrealers demonstrated that, as far as the conflict with Iraq is concerned, Canadian unity still exists.
Like Canadians across the country, these Quebecers showed they were strongly opposed to Canada's involvement in a war against Iraq. A poll published in La Presse confirmed that 72 per cent of the people of Quebec are against Canada's involvement.

Quebecers are fiercely opposed to such a war because they know that all other options, besides war, have not been exhausted by an American Administration determined to go to war.
In time, the United Nations embargo would have played havoc with the Iraqi economy.
This embargo was not yielding results fast enough for President Bush. So, we find ourselves at the brink of a war our government wants our country to take part in.
This House has the duty to listen to the Quebecers and Canadians and to vote against Canada's participation in a pointless war which would have much more devastating consequences than what it is meant to correct.



Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, residents from both Canada and the United States came together in St. Stephen this past weekend to express their support for a peaceful resolution to the crisis in the Persian Gulf.
This non-denominational gathering held at the Holy Rosary Catholic Church organized by Mrs. Joan Jones, Mrs. Keay Halstead and others was intended to bring people from all faiths on both sides of the border together in a common expression of concern for those men and women who, in a matter of hours from now, may find themselves embroiled in a war in the Middle East.
This is typical of the growing movement on the part of people throughout the world that world peace be preserved and that international order be restored at the earliest possible opportunity.
I quote Mrs. Jones when she said: "The situation is frightening, and if we ever needed to pray together, this is the time".


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the disturbing news that Radio-Canada French listeners and viewers will be getting second-class information as a result of the budget restraints forced on the CBC. And all that because the government is bent on destroying our national institutions.
We simply cannot accept the fact that, at a time when Canadians need to be told what is happening in the gulf, not by Belgian, American, French or other media but indeed from a truly Canadian perspective, they will not have their own teams of reporters on the scene.

Second, I ask Parliament to reaffirm freedom of the press and to protest the reported U.S. military plans to restrict the flow of news in the gulf.

The Canadian Association of Journalists has stated that imposing such rule will blind both TV and press reporters, and hide important facts from Canadians who want to and must know what is going on. This situation is unacceptable to Canada , and I hope Parliament and the government will do something to set things straight.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians should take pride in the effectiveness and success of our Canadian forces in the gulf.
Our service personnel are as good as exist anywhere in the world. Our men and women in uniform are professional and well trained to do their jobs. They, of all Canadians, do not look forward to war, but are prepared to do their duty. Furthermore, their families and most Nova Scotians stand with them.
One question that I am repeatedly asked by service personnel and their families in the metro area is why are the members of Parliament from Halifax and Dartmouth not standing with us and endorsing what we are here to do. That is a good question and one those members should answer in this House today.

January 15, 1991
The Canadian navy has had a proud record throughout its history. Our sailors do not turn and run when the shooting starts. They do not want their government and their MPs to tell them to.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, today the world is perched on the edge of an unthinkable abyss. Calculating the loss of life which will result from war in the Middle East is horrifying.
Equally horrifying is the long-term impact on the global environment. Experts have determined that even if only one-half of the oil wells in Kuwait are set on fire, the wells will bum for months, producing millions of tonnes of ozone depleting and global warming gases. The resulting clouds of black smoke will create the effect of a nuclear winter.
The burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields would cause temperature extremes and alter monsoon patterns at tremendous costs to food production world-wide. It is estimated that over one billion people in Asia would face starvation as a result of monsoon failure. Even partial monsoon failure could cause more deaths than the population of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia combined.
A war in the gulf would have disastrous environmental implications. I am not scare-mongering. I am asking, in light of these facts, how can we even contemplate a war as a solution to this crisis?


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate today, the choice seems to be to respect our commitment to the United Nations or to renege, to stand on the sidelines and wait.
But wait for how long? Until the threat of UN action against Iraq is no longer credible? Wait until Kuwait is destroyed? Wait until the death of every man, woman and child in Kuwait? Wait until Saddam attacks further? Wait until Iraq develops nuclear capability? Wait until a UN coalition breaks up?
Neville Chamberlain said wait. Saddam Hussein has defined our choice for us.



Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, January 14, on behalf of the centre of peace undertakings in Canada, President Frans Manouvrier handed to me and to my colleagues petitions bearing the signatures of 4,770 Canadian men and women opposed to a military intervention in the Persian Gulf. These petitions are addressed to the Canadian government and urge it to take a pacifist approach to the gulf crisis.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Manouvrier, Mrs. Johanne Robitaille and all those who worked to gather nearly 5,000 signatures of people in favour of peace. I urge all the citizens of Glengarry-Prescott- Russell to sign similar petitions.
We must not intervene forcefully as long as there is still a chance to maintain peace in the Persian Gulf.



Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on August 2, 1990, without any warning or the slightest provocation, Iraq, a member of the United Nations, invaded and has since occupied Kuwait, a small country also a member of the United Nations. It is no longer simply a conflict between Iraq and Kuwait, but a conflict between Iraq and the rest of the world. Rarely has the international community shown such solidarity against an aggressor. Never has the United Nations reacted so efficiently, and never in the last 40 years has Canada felt such a need to react.
Our prime minister, the right hon. Brian Mulroney, and our Secretary of State for External Affairs, the right hon. Joe Clark, have used every diplomatic channels in an effort to resolve this crisis in a peaceful way, because, that is what all Canadians wish would happen before midnight today in the Persian Gulf.
January 15, 1991



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Resolution 678 of the UN Security Council authorizes member states to use all necessary means, including a military offensive, to get Iraq out of Kuwait after midnight this evening.
Since the Prime Minister and his government supported this UN resolution, is the government preparing for a Canadian military offensive to get Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait? Is Canada going to war with Iraq? Yes or no, Mr. Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in my speech this morning I mentioned two important elements in connection with the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition. First, the Canadian government was going to explore all existing possibilities for a durable peace, between now and midnight, between now and the expiry of the deadline. That has not changed.
Second, the government has also announced what governs the behaviour of our military, and there have been no changes so far. This morning I mentioned that the Government of Canada, failing a peaceful resolution in the form of acceptance or a signal from Saddam Hussein that he intends to observe the provisions and the resolutions of the United Nations, failing that, the Canadian government intended to join other countries that support the UN in order to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that Canada would support the United Nations if force is used to get Iraq out of Kuwait. But there is no United Nations military operation. It is the United States that will be leading the military operation.
When the United States goes to war with Iraq, will the Prime Minister order young Canadian men and women into war as well? Will Canadians be going to war in the gulf?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, inadvertently, no doubt, commits a very serious mistake in regard to his interpretation of resolution 678 because he persists in quoting but two paragraphs of the resolution.
The resolution demands that Iraq fully comply with the resolutions. Second, it authorizes member states to use all necessary means to uphold it. And third, it requests all states to provide appropriate support for the actions taken, namely actions taken to uphold and implement-


Mr. Axworthy:: Not requires, requests.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No. My hon. friend is saying that it does not require. No. It does not require. The United Nations makes a specific request in the resolution asking all member states to act to uphold the integrity of the United Nations and Canada will do just that.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Prime Minister that is exactly what is being debated here. We say that it is not the time for war and that there are other means such are sanctions, embargoes, and diplomacy.
The question I am asking the Prime Minister is, will Canada be at war against Iraq if the United States starts the war tonight at midnight?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I think all hon. members realize the importance of the issues that are before us. This morning the conduct and behaviour of members was for the most part exemplary, given the very serious matters that were being discussed. I am sure that all hon. members would want to ensure that matters being discussed here are treated with the gravity which they deserve and that the courtesies which are traditional in this place be carried out.
The right hon. Prime Minister.

January 15, 1991
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Article I of the Charter of the United Nations provides for circumstances during which members who freely associate with the United Nations may be called upon, in the interests of international security, to suppress acts of aggression.
Such a request was specifically made under Resolution 678 of the Security Council, a resolution co-sponsored by Canada, which was a member of the Security Council at that time. Paragraph No. 3 of that resolution states that, in the event of the failure of Saddam Hussein to respond to a reasonable request to withdraw from a neighbouring, innocent Arab state that he has invaded-and if he persists in his refusal-member states are requested to come to the aid of the United Nations to seek to enforce resolutions of the United Nations.
As Mr. Pearson said and as I referred to this morning in my speech, the fact of the matter is the United Nations must be defended because the absence of the United Nations means the absence of effective peace in the world.


An hon. member:: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend wants to know whether we are going to defend the United Nations. We will not stand idly by. When the United Nations asks for support, we will support the United Nations because the United Nations supports world peace.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister while he is in the mood for honouring the United Nations Charter.
When the United Nations Security Council imposed economic sanctions, it established a special committee of the council to assess and report on the effectiveness of those sanctions. That committee has yet to report. Yet various experts, including the director of the CIA have said that sanctions are having a very deep impact, including the war-fighting capacity of Iraq.
How can Canada commit this country to go to war when the United Nations Security Council has yet to decide on the effectiveness of sanctions, as it must do
under the charter, before it initiates any further military action?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the question as to how long one would wait for sanctions to take effect on Iraq, if they would ever take effect on Iraq, is an important question.
The hon. member knows, because he has been a member of the parliamentary committee before which these matters have been discussed, that it is possible to have reports. We have already had reports. Some have been circulated from the committee to which he refers.
There is no obligation, unless he has just invented one in his own mind, for that committee to make a report as a condition precedent to other decisions being taken by the Security Council. He knows that.
While we are speaking about evidence with respect to the effectiveness of sanctions, he will remember that when I appeared before the standing committee I made it clear that there was no evidence at all that economic sanctions were having an effect upon the economic-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Joseph Clark: -upon the capacity of Iraq-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Ms. Copps:: G.I. Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, may I continue?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Secretary of State.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that we had no evidence to suggest that the sanctions program in place was affecting the capacity of Saddam Hussein to make war.
I asked the hon. member who holds to a different view and who bases his policy on a different view, specifically, to provide me with any information he has. Indeed, I said, he has a duty to provide that information. That was weeks ago. I have not heard from him. If he has any any specific information, I would be interested in seeing it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
January 15, 1991


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the minister that the duty is not mine. The duty is the United Nations'.
The government has talked about defending the charter. Under Article 42 of the Charter of the United Nations no military action can be initiated until the Security Council has decided on the adequacy or inadequacy of sanctions. The Security Council has not made that decision.
How can the minister and the Prime Minister send Canada to war when a fundamental principle and fundamental requirement of the charter has not yet been met? You are denying the Charter of the United Nations.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if Canada is denying the Charter of the United Nations, so, too, is Javier Perez de Cuellar; so, too, is the Government of France; so, too, is the Government of the United Kingdom; so, too, are all the members-permanent and those with two-year terms- of the Security Country; and so, too, are other countries which recognize, as the Prime Minister said so eloquently this morning, that the initial purpose of the United Nations when it was established by Mr. Pearson, among others, was to provide the capacity to talk as long as talk would work. But then, under the charter, when it became clear that talk would not persuade-


Lloyd Axworthy: Article 42 under the charter is being evaded-which is to obey the charter, not evade it.


Charles Joseph Clark: -it was in the interests of world order for force to be deployed. That is the charter. It has been decades since we have been able to realize the effectiveness to accomplish what Lester Pearson dreamed of.
We are now in a situation where it is possible for us to have the full authority of the United Nations Charter, the authority to talk and the authority to act.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister came to power, he said that he would change the face of Canada. Indeed, his government has done a lot to make this happen, but surely nothing equals
Oral Questions
what has been done in the past to the decision of the Prime Minister and his government today that Canada will support offensive action in the Middle East. The lives of hundreds of people are at stake.
We talked earlier this morning about sanctions and whether or not they are working, and what the options are. I think we have had the positions clearly on the table this morning. We know the Prime Minister's and the government's position. The New Democratic Party has clearly put out our position in opposition to Canada going to war.
I presume the Prime Minister has made his decision to involve Canada in a war based on information that sanctions and other diplomatic measures have not worked.
Therefore, will the Prime Minister support the New Democratic Party's proposition that immediately after Question Period the House go into a committee of the whole where we have an opportunity to hear witnesses- academics, military people, and government people-so that we can have a real debate and so that that will be available for Canadians who are watching closely what action we take in the House?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, raises a question that her House leader raised this morning at about 11.15 and was put to the House Leader of the Government. My understanding is that the Leader of the Government in the House proposed that this matter be considered by House leaders later on this afternoon. He will no doubt report back to me, and I will be happy to discuss it with my hon. friend.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks. I hope that he gives his vote to support because I believe this is what we need so that all Canadians who are watching these proceedings have full information.
We are now at January 15, a date which has been set for the consideration of war, but many countries continue with peace proposals. Britain has made some, as has France and some of the Arab countries. There are initiatives being pursued even at this late date.

Oral Questions
My question to the Prime Minister is this. What initiatives are being taken by his government today, January 15, to either participate or to initiate peace proposals and options to war?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, one of the proposals that has come forward in the last 36 hours is a proposal by the Government of France that is being considered in the Security Council. It contains six elements. The most important is the first because it requires a veiy clear signal on the part of Iraq that it will take actions immediately to respect the Security Council resolutions.
The other five points in that proposal reflect to a remarkable degree the proposals that were contained in a letter written by the Prime Minister of Canada to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, which I delivered to him the night before he left for Baghdad. Those proposals had been drawn from conversations that the Prime Minister and I, the Minister of National Defence, the Associate Minister and others, have had with various leaders of other countries, including several in the Arab world. One of the realities of which we are acutely conscious is that very often countries will say things to Canada that they will not say to superpowers or will not say to countries which are directly involved in negotiations.
As a result of that good standing of Canada, we were able to take these various proposals, synthesize them and draw from them what we considered to be elements of a potential proposal. Those elements were in the possession of the Secretary General when he went to Baghdad. He was deeply appreciative of the Canadian initiative. As I understand it, he did not have the opportunity to discuss those with Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein was not prepared to discuss at that time even the least adherence to Security Council resolutions.
Those same principles, with some changes in nuance, have arisen again in the French proposal. It may be that in these more public circumstances Saddam Hussein may be encouraged to respond to them. We hope he does. We hope that there is some movement in the hours that remain in this period that was deliberately established by the United Nations as a period for peace. We are supporting a proposal. We are discussing with the British a proposal that they have brought forward. We are waiting for results of conversations that the Yemeni have had to see if those conversations may lead to some proposal.
I will be taking part later in the debate and will be outlining a range of the other initiatives that Canada has taken over the last five weeks with a purpose which I believe is entirely shared in this House that we should seek to resolve this peacefully if that is at all possible.
Where we disagree in this House is what we do if it appears that peaceful means are not possible. Do we then support the United Nations as we want to do, or do we walk away from it?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that overview, but surely Canadians are looking for a government that is not prepared simply to hope but that is prepared to act.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, there is no decision more critical or far-reaching than the decision to wage war. It is a matter of life and death. It is a moral issue, involving one's conscience. All of us will be judged by his or her conscience and by history.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he tell the members of his caucus that for this vote at least, probably the most important in their political lives, there will be a free vote on this war issue?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The
government follows a policy which is in the national interest of all Canadians, based on the responsibilities of an important country such as Canada. This morning I defined the parameters of these policies and obligations and the policy I stated this morning will be supported by all government members.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Recently, a Canadian forces spokesperson confirmed that in addition to flying escort patrols over Canadian forces ships in the gulf, our CF-18s will also be flying escort for U.S. B-52 bombers.
How can a CF-18 that is flying on an offensive mission with a U.S. B-52 bomber be considered in a defensive position? What has this got to do with our ships in the gulf? Is this not a serious contradiction and a change from the defensive policy that Canada has been following in the gulf so far?
January 15, 1991


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member is inaccurate when he says that a Canadian forces spokesman confirmed.


An hon. member:: It is in The Globe and Mail.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The hon. member says it is in The Globe and Mail. Occasionally, without any disrespect to that fine paper, it does make a mistake.
I would say to the hon. member that the Canadian forces officer whom he is referring to said he could make an argument that protecting assets of nations that were collaborating in enforcing UN resolutions could be argued to be defensive.
That in no way says there has been a change in role. We are not involved in anything except those responsibilities that were outlined when the CF-18 squadron was sent into the Middle East. The Prime Minister, in announcing that decision, said that that squadron was there to defend Canadian vessels and assets, and those of other nations co-operating in the United Nations sanctions.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that the minister has confirmed that we have not, are not now and will not be flying escort for B-52 bombers. I understand that is what the minister has confirmed on the floor of the House today.
Let me ask him this: If war breaks out and if in addition to additional B-52 bombers, F-llls are sent, which our pilots have not been trained to escort, will additional CF-18s be sent to the gulf? Will our people be trained in proper procedures? Is this not still a contradiction and a change from the defensive policy that Canada has followed in the gulf so far?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, in the first part of my colleague's question he intimated that I confirmed. I confirmed nothing, as to the future tasks of the Canadian forces in their role in putting forward efforts along with other nations in supporting resolutions of the United Nations. What I did say, and I confirm to the hon. member at this time, that the CF-18 Canadian forces squadron is involved exactly as it was when the Prime Minister announced its deployment.
Oral Questions
I will say to the hon. member, because he referred to training, that he knows, as well as other members in this House, that the Canadian forces pilots and their role and mission in NATO is that which allows them to have the training he referred to, to have the capacity and the skill. They are among the best trained pilots in the world, doing on behalf of Canadians what I am sure Canadians want them to do, and defending the United Nations and its resolutions.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TFinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. There is in the Persian Gulf area right now quite an impressive array of force: 675,000 ground troops, 4,500 tanks, 150 warships, 1,500 combat aircraft and 13,000 combat vehicles for ground support. The co-ordination of such a force is an extraordinarily difficult task. Under the circumstances the method is recommended to be a United Nations commander with the United Nations chain of command.
Can the minister inform the House that such a structure and such a chain of command will pertain?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure who the hon. member is referring to or who is making that recommendation that there be a United Nations commander and a United Nations command.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is fully aware as to the structures of command. The hon. member is fully aware as to how the NATO structure operates, which is similar to the structure under which Canadian forces and forces of some 30 plus other allied nations are operating in the Persian Gulf area.
The command is a national command. Tactical control, as he is fully aware, is occasionally chopped by nations. That means that tactical control of some Canadian assets may be under other nation. Thctical control of other nations' assets may be under Canadian command, but at all times the Canadian men and women who are serving at this time in the Persian Gulf are under Canadian national command.

Oral Questions


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. I have a supplementary. He did not answer the question.
The minister talks about the NATO structure. I am very familiar with that, but I would remind the minister that that NATO structure was designated. It exists, it is in place and it has been for some time. The operating procedures are very cut and dry. I and everybody involved understands them.
I can accept that while we have command and control in the Canadian sense in essentially a peacetime operation, although it is tense in a designated sector, in a predictable assigned task of three ships, 24 aircraft and 1,816 men and women. But war is unpredictable. I am not quite as convinced that with such an array of forces that even though we could have Canadian command of the forces in the gulf that we could in any way, shape or form have Canadian control.
I will ask the minister then, in the consequence of his attempt to answer my previous question, to now confirm that while the forces will definitely be Canadian commanded, it is possible that they will be under the control of the Americans or the Saudis.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, it is not my responsibility, nor would I attempt to explain to the hon. member tactical control and national command. I know I do not have to explain it. He understands it. He is nodding his head. Mr. Speaker, that answers his question.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are deeply concerned that our government is leading our country into an American-led war which would have consequences in human, in ecological, in economic and in geopolitical terms, which would be absolutely disastrous and which could involve the use the nuclear, chemical and biological warfare.
In view of the fact that last night the chief of defence staff confirmed that our troops would be involved in defending American ground troops in Saudi Arabia in the event of war, will the Prime Minister not heed the concerns of Canadians who are saying to this Prime Minister and to this government: "we do not want Canada to be dragged into a war. If there is to be a war
Canada should be playing a peaceful role. Our troops should not be involved in that war. We should be playing a humanitarian role and bringing our troops out of that theatre of conflict"? Will the Prime Minister not take that stand on behalf of all Canadians?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, even by his standards the hon. member is extreme in the statements that he makes.
For one thing, in his characterization of the countries involved in this conflict, he knows that much of the dramatic and dynamic leadership of the coalition comes in fact from Arab countries that have a particular worry about peace in their region precisely because it is their region, and also of course from other powers with great military capacity such as France, the United States, the United Kingdom, and others. I am sure he does not intend to mislead, but the consequence of his statement would be to mislead Canadians as to the nature of the coalition and I am sure he would not want that to happen.
He would also know, when he speaks of bloodshed and when he speaks of the terrible consequences of war, that there are terrible consequences to the status quo, to the situation now. That is not simply the situation in Kuwait where there has been a country pillaged in the process of being pillaged more. It is a consequence throughout the region sadly and tragically, I believe, that was evidenced last night by assassinations in another part of that region.
It also holds the threat for other nations, nations anywhere in the world where violence is possible-and those are legion-that if the United Nations cannot be effective here after all the actions that have been taken by the United Nations then those regions which are also hot spots that could explode will be left without the capacity of an instrument like the United Nations working with the authority to try to stop that kind of danger.
We are not choosing between a situation in which there would be bloodshed on the one hand and absolute peace on the other. That is a fairy tale. We are dealing with a situation of grave danger. What we have to do is find a way in which we resolve that danger in a way that not only-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should go on to the next question.
January 15, 1991


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people remember that this same minister who is defending this action under the United Nations auspices is a minister who said three months ago that he did not give a damn whether the UN would support us or not; he would go to war anyway. They do not care about the United Nations.

My supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The minister has told us that he finds the French peace initiative interesting and positive. It is a fact that economic sanctions and diplomacy should be given more time to work to avoid a catastrophic war. My question to the minister is very specific: Has the Canadian Government contacted all Security Council members, including the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union to encourage them to support the French initiative to avoid a catastrophic war?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in the first part of his question the member for Burnaby made an accusation which is false, which he knows is false, and which the record of the standing committee will demonstrate is false. I certainly am prepared to stand on the record of the standing committee.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: I rather regret that he is not following the reasonable approach that was taken by his leader in her speech today when she spoke of the importance of keeping this issue something we discuss on its merits and in a manner free of partisanship or of pettiness. I would hope that he would follow her lead.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: As to the second part of the question, I can confirm that we are in contact with other members of the Security Council, including France, the United Kingdom and the United States, to determine whether the French proposal has a probability of success. But the reply that matters is not that of the United States, but that of Saddam Hussein, for it is essential, for the French proposal to succeed that Saddam Hussein
Oral Questions
recognize the need to comply with the United Nations resolutions.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
It is the view of many Canadians today that the effectiveness of the United Nations is being undermined by some member states that have distorted the UN charter to justify force to end the gulf conflict at this time.
In order to keep collective security measures within the bounds of the UN charter, will Canada press for the reconvening of the Security Council immediately to review and report to the world on the effectiveness of the sanctions to date and, if necessary, to recommend any further UN actions?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who follows these things closely will know that the Secretary-General came back and met with the Security Council yesterday. They are meeting again now. They are discussing actions that should be taken on what is the last day of the extraordinary pause for peace that was deliberately placed in the Security Council resolution as not only an opportunity, which it was, but a final opportunity, which it explicitly was, to Saddam Hussein to opt for peace rather than to force the world to war.
Apart from the new theology of her colleague from Winnipeg, there is no requirement for the United Nations to take another decision with respect to sanctions. The sanctions proposal is now in place and I should say that the Leader of the Opposition this morning announced that his policy is to wait. The reality is that one in the real world cannot wait forever. There come times when one has to take decisions based upon principle.
Our principle is that we want to support the United Nations and that element of the charter of the United Nations brought in by Mr. Pearson when he said: "There is authority to talk and, when talk won't work, there has to be the ability to enforce the words of the United Nations."


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

Oral Questions


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister.
On November 28, the Secretary of State told us that it was the responsibility of "all nations to seek a basis for the peaceful acceptance of Security Council resolutions", and later in December he told Canadians that "our government is determined that no stone be left unturned in our efforts to find a peaceful solution to the crisis".
We have heard from the minister today about French, British, and Yemeni proposals. We are going to hear about what Canada has done in the last five weeks. What we want to know is what peace initiatives this government will pursue today and tomorrow to avert a war in the gulf.


Charles Joseph Clark: Two things, Mr. Speaker. First, I should make it very clear, as I believe I did in the answer to a question from the New Democratic Party, that we are actively working with other countries to see if it is possible to make progress on some of the proposals that are now being considered, one of which,-the French proposal- reflects to a remarkable degree proposals that Canada itself put forward.
The point is not to have a number of proposals that we can wave around and say that we did this. The point is to try to have something that will work. There are some proposals that may work. I have already answered the question that we are using all of our energy, as we have through this period, to try to see if it is possible to make those proposals that are now on the table, that are now being considered, work.
But, as I said in French a moment ago, the question really is not a question for the United States, for France or even for Canada. The question now is a question for Saddam Hussein. Will he accept the condition precedent in the French proposal which is that he must signal clearly and unequivocally his willingness to withdraw troops from Kuwait and to begin to respect Security Council resolutions?
Finally, as I said to her colleague the other day in committee, we have no monopoly on good ideas. If the hon. member has a proposal that she believes we should pursue, we would be very pleased to have that. We have been pursuing-


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. If there is a war and we take part in it, our safety will be jeopardized, here, in Canada. We should not delude ourselves about that. The transportation system, particularly for air transportation, as well as systems supplying us with drinking water, will all become potential targets.
Can the government confirm that it has taken, in conjunction with the provinces, every step to ensure the safety of these infrastructures and of the Canadian people on our own territory? Can the Prime minister tell us specifically what he has done in that area?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the government is well aware of the risks the hon. member is referring to. Saddam Hussein and some of his colleagues even made direct threats. Mechanisms are in place to allow us to identify such risks that could be facing Canada as well as evaluate them and take appropriate action if need be.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, that answer is hardly complete. It is very clear, given the fact that the decision to go to war is a discretionary one arising out of the failure to allow sanctions to work. I am delighted to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs fully endorse the French proposal. I take it this is a new piece of information just provided us.
Be that as it may, it is crucial now to provide the civilian population with assurances that its security is being looked after.
What steps has the government taken in terms of public information, even more important in terms of public education, to prepare Canadians at home for possible acts of retaliation? Furthermore, what steps has the government taken in terms of those Canadians who are working abroad to provide them with contingency protection in case of war?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to reaffirm the fact that we have taken those threats very seriously. It is very important that not only Canada be vigilant but that all countries in the world be vigilant, because threats have been made to other countries as well.

We have services here in Canada that are specialized and do exactly that type of risk assessment. It has been done. I do not think it would be a very secure measure for me to disclose today what our security measures are all about.


BALTIC STATES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn the attention of the House for a minute to another tragedy unfolding, that which is unfolding in the Baltic states, and ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure I speak for all members when I say how concerned we are about the violence which we have seen, particularly in Lithuania, in recent days. We are very pleased, of course, that the House has been able to speak with one voice in the way that it did earlier.
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs make it absolutely clear to President Gorbachev on behalf of all Canadians that a pre-condition for continuing good will toward Mr. Gorbachev and the Soviet Union is that the democratically elected governments of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia not be overthrown with Mr. Gorbachev standing idly by while this kind of thing threatens to happen?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and others in the House for their agreement to unanimously support the resolution that was adopted this morning.
I think it is of fundamental importance that the Soviet authorities be under no illusion about the seriousness of the people and Parliament of Canada on this issue.
The hon. member asked me for an undertaking with regard to a communication with Mr. Gorbachev indicating how much was at issue here, how much Canadian co-operation would be affected. That has already been done. The Prime Minister's letter could not have been clearer. That letter was sent on Sunday. We expect a response to it.
Oral Questions
With regard to other things which we might do to be of help in a practical way, I found it very helpful in the past that there was the degree of co-operation among private members who are interested in this issue. Many members of this House made proposals on which we were to able to act with respect to earlier chapters in the history of the Baltic states. I would certainly welcome those kinds of constructive proposals from the hon. member and others.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. I say to the House that I had the opportunity, along with other members of this House to be in Lithuania just under a year ago for the election of the Sajudis government there. I cannot think of a more peaceful and democratic bunch of people. I say to President Gorbachev, if he permits their violent overthrow, then he should give his Nobel Peace Prize back.
I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of External Affairs. What does Canada intend to do at the United nations or in some other way to bring the issue of the Baltic states and its annexation by the Soviet Union into the international arena where it properly belongs?
We have never recognized the annexation of those three states. I think it is time that the government took some initiative to bring this into the international arena where the Soviet Union can have impressed upon it the fact that people regard the Baltic states as a special case.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think there are two areas to which it is most useful for us to turn our attention. I agree with the member that the dramatic changes and circumstances require us to approach this with urgency. One is the United Nations; the other is the CSE process. Neither is simple, because of the capacity of the Soviet Union with its rights to veto in a practical or formal way any such consideration.
I must confess to the member that the priority of my officials on this question is to try to be of help to Canadians and Canadian interests in Lithuania. We will be moving soon to see if there are ways in which we can act on the diplomatic front.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there has been some consideration in the Chamber. I am going to look to the hon. leader of the opposition on a point of order.

Tributes


TRIBUTES
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we were deeply saddened to learn that the honorable C.M. Drury passed away last weekend.

Bud Drury was bom and raised in traditional West-mount style, but he chose to lead a life that was anything but traditional. After completing his education at the Royal Military College, he chose to complete his preparation for leadership in Canadian affairs by making himself fully bilingual, an unusual step for a man of his background and generation.
During World War II, he rose to the rank of Brigadier at an unprecedented young age. At war's end, he attained a status of a genuine hero as the leader of the United Nations Relief Agency's work in Poland.
After serving as Deputy Minister of National Defence, Bud returned to his family business. In 1962, he came back to public life as the member of Parliament for Westmount.
In 1963, he was appointed Minister of Defence Production and Ministry of Industry, leading the negotiations that resulted in the Canadian-U.S Auto Pact.
In 1968, he became President of the Treasury Board and later served as Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology.
In 1978, he left Parliament to become Chairman of the National Capital Commission.
Bud Drury remained active and vital in his retirement, terrorizing the roads of the Gatineau hills in his red sports car, advising his children in modem business practices, and teaching his grandchildren the mysteries of the computer.
Although bodily ailments slowed him down physically, his inquiring mind remained clear and penetrating.
We join his daughters, Di and Leith, and his sons, Victor and Gib, in the passing of one who rejoiced so in life.

I had the pleasure of working with Mr. Drury for many years and benefited from his advice. He was a real gentleman and he served his country well. He served it as a member of the Armed Forces, as a very senior official of the government, and as a most distinguished member of this House. Here, as across the whole country, he had no enemies. We profoundly regret the loss of this great Canadian.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister and members of the Conservative caucus, indeed the Government of Canada, I want to join with the hon. Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute the late Hon. Charles Bud Druiy.
I had the privilege of serving in the House with Bud. I clearly echo the remarks and comments that were made by the Leader of the Opposition.
As the Leader of the Opposition indicated, Bud was a successful businessman and entrepreneur but gave himself to public life in a very unselfish and generous way. He had a very outstanding military career.
He had an outstanding political career, having served in the House from 1962 to 1978. He also served as a Deputy Minister. He played a key role in the work of the United Nations and a very key role in the advancement and building of the National Capital Commission here in Ottawa.
He had an array of portfolios in which he served with distinction, from Industry, Defence Production, Science and Technology, Treasury Board and Public Works. He discharged those responsibilities and obligations with distinction.
I also note, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition did, that he did have a very keen interest in the pursuit of liberalized trade. To that end, he was instrumental in the negotiations of the Auto Pact in 1965.1 am sure that he would look back with a great deal of respect, satisfaction and admiration to the additional activities that the Auto Pact led to. I think he did really plant the seeds of liberalized trade between two of the greatest trading partners in the world.
Bud commanded respect in the House. He really was a House of Commons man. He treated all members with distinction and was always available to be spoken to about a problem. As one who came here as a new member, I found Mr. Drury always open and accessible.

As The Ottawa Citizen said, he wore many hats and he discharged his responsibilities with distinction.
On behalf of all of us on this side of the House, I want to extend our sincerest sympathy to his family, his two sons and his daughters. We, on this side, appreciate very much the significant contribution he has made to Canada and the business world in public leadership. Most important, as members of the House of Commons, we appreciate very much the class, the distinction, and the leadership that he showed here on the floor of the House.
While I am on my feet, I would like to also pay tribute as well to a former colleague of ours, namely, Lawrence Watson, who was the former member of Parliament for the riding of Assiniboia in the province of Saskatchewan. Lawrence served the House from 1963 to 1968. He passed away on December 22.
While I did not have the privilege of serving in the House with him, I got to know him as one who was a champion of rural affairs and the farmers of western Canada, particularly the wheat growers in the Assiniboia area. He was a big fellow and we used to refer to him as Hoss and he enjoyed that very much. He had a lot of friends and made a lot of friends here. He was a man who looked after his constituency affairs and certainly always had the interests of the farmers at heart.
We want to, on this occasion, send to his wife, Louise, and his family our deepest sympathy and to assure them, that the contribution of Lawrence Watson will always be remembered and treasured.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I would like to join in the condolences to the families of Mr. Watson and the Hon. Bud Drury. While I did not serve with either of those gentlemen, I think the very wonderful recounts of those who did serve with them are a great tribute.
Perhaps the greatest tributes one can have from one's colleagues have been given today concerning those two parliamentarians, particularly the Hon. Bud Drury, who served in a number of capacities, over a number of years, under two Prime Ministers. We see a model that all of us
Tributes
could afford to emulate in taking an interest in a diversity of affairs to serve the Canadian people well and to be a role model for all Canadians. So, I too, would like to add condolences, on behalf of my party, to the families of those two great parliamentarians.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to express our condolences to the family and friends of the former member from Saskatchewan. He was certainly recognized across Canada as one of those farm leaders who took the bit in his mouth and fought on behalf of the constituents he represented. He will be sadly missed by all those who knew him.
I also rise today to pay tribute to a former member of this House, Larry Condon, who died last Friday and was buried this morning. Larry Condon was a member of this House from 1974 to 1979. For those who knew Larry, he was an enthusiastic person with boundless energy who loved his country and his family. He served his constituents well, in his former position as mayor of the town of Strathroy and as member of Parliament for Lambton- Middlesex. Larry Condon was a true friend of the working people. He will be sadly missed by his former colleagues, his friends, his family and all of those who were dear to him.


Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a true Canadian and a former member of Parliament, Larry Condon. Larry was the member for Lambton-Middlesex. Mr. Condon always had the interests of his community and Canada at heart. Larry is remembered as a likeable, non-partisan individual. On behalf of our government, I extend to his wife and family our sympathies.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I want also to add my condolences to the family of Larry Condon. There are few of us in the House from the class of 1974-two colleagues to my right and perhaps one or two across the way. We are very limited in number now.
We all remember Larry as being a very affable person, easy to get along with, friendly, congenial, and so on. We enjoyed his fellowship while we were here in the House. It is something that this House brings to itself that is quite remarkable.

Government Orders
I would like to join my colleagues in expressing our sympathy to his wife and to his family.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I would like to add a few words about Larry Condon.
He was a member of Parliament from Ontario who served his constituents well and this country well. I sat in the House with him for a number of years.
I want to extend to his family our deepest sympathy and let them know that we appreciate the contribution he made to the country and to his constituents. He was a very understanding, dedicated, and sympathetic man who made a great contribution to Canada.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to pay homage to Larry Condon.
I knew Larry Condon since he was about 10 years old. We grew up together in Montreal. Larry was from Verdun and we went to Loyola High School together. Larry was the goalie on the hockey team on which I played in high school and he was also the quarterback of the football team. I was the halfback at that time and not many would believe that.
I have known Larry for a long, long time and I was very saddened to learn of his death. I would like to extend my condolences to his family.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a short point of order.
I am sure that others as well have reviewed Hansard of December 19 and have recognized a number of procedural anomalies that occurred as that day wore on. Considering the day, Mr. Speaker, it is not the day to enter into discussion about some of the concerns that members would have about the rather creative use of procedure on that day. I would like to ask your willingness, Mr. Speaker, to set aside this discussion for perhaps another day to allow the important debate to continue this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the hon. member for Kamloops wants to raise as a point of order the proceedings, or some aspect of the proceedings, on the last day before
we adjourned. I certainly will hear the hon. member and other hon. members. Perhaps I could contact the hon. member for Kamloops and set up an appropriate time. I agree that probably it is best not to pursue it this afternoon.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) (p. 16984) and the amendment of Mr. Chretien (p. 16995).
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the leader of the New Democratic Party on the serious and thoughtful nature of her remarks. She clearly was attempting to be constructive and set forth in some very general terms other options which she thinks should be explored.
The hon. member and I may argue about what realism means, but I think that she would agree that the government and the world require much more precision as to other options than she was able to provide today. We look forward, very genuinely, to receiving any specific suggestions that she or members of her party might have, either during this debate or through the conduct of this crisis.
This is, as the leader of the New Democratic Party said, an extraordinary time. It requires all of us to do evetything we can to bring forward the best practical advice we can.
The new Leader of the Opposition made essentially four points, as I understood his intervention. He wants to wait for sanctions to have effect, yet he gives the House no idea as to how long he proposes to wait and he gives the House not one iota of evidence that the sanctions program that we have mounted will affect Iraqi political leadership or military capacity. I want to return later in my remarks to the question of sanctions, but I hope that other spokespersons of the Liberal Party will be far more precise in indicating exactly how long they want to wait.

Second, the Leader of the Opposition pretends that the use of force in the Gulf would not have the authority of the United Nations. That is absolutely false. Resolution 678 of the United Nations is precise. Let me quote Articles 2 and 3:
2.	Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
3.	Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
That was the resolution entered into deliberately after extensive legal advice and after extensive discussion with the Secretary General and with others. There is no question that the actions we are taking, the actions we would contemplate are actions that have the authority of the United Nations.
Third, he proposes, as I understand it, to call back Canadian troops. Well, certainly that is not the position of the government.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: Fourth, he makes the curious and, I find, alarming argument that because the United Nations failed in Tibet, because the United Nations failed in Cyprus, and because the United Nations has failed in solving other crises, we should not help the United Nations succeed in Kuwait. That is absurd and it is not a logic that this government accepts.

Mr. Speaker, 167 days ago, Saddam Hussein brutally invaded Kuwait, without provocation. That is how the war started. Today Kuwait is still occupied. It has been pillaged, and more than half the population has fled the country. Amnesty International has reported flagrant human rights violations. Saddam Hussein has declared that Kuwait is now, irrevocably, part of Iraq. A sovereign member State of the United Nations is about to be wiped out.
Since the beginning of this crisis, the international community has, with unprecedented unanimity and clarity, expressed its position. The UN Security Council has adopted 12 resolutions, most of them unanimous, con-
Govemment Orders
demning Iraq's act of aggression and demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait, while imposing sanctions to force it to abide by the UN decisions.
Forty-eight days ago, on November 29, Saddam Hussein was given a period of grace. The purpose was to give diplomacy another chance and to try and convince Iraq that the international community was not bluffing and that it would use force, if necessary, as soon as the deadline expired. This resolution was clear. It indicated that as a sign of good will Iraq would be granted a period of grace to give it one last chance.
Yesterday, UN Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar returned from Iraq, discouraged and convinced that it was now practically impossible to hope for a diplomatic solution to the crisis. On the advice of the Secretary-General, European foreign affairs ministers decided not to send a delegation to Baghdad.
Since Security Council resolution 678 was adopted, Iraq knows perfectly well that the international community is not bluffing. However, its troops are still occupying Kuwait.

During these last 48 days, diplomacy has been applied to a degree rarely seen before. I indicated, as the Prime Minister did, that I would like to give some indication of some of the actions that were taken by Canada. I cannot recount them all for a variety of reasons, because some are still in train. I want to indicate some of the activities in which this country, on behalf of peace, has been engaged.
On a bilateral basis, and perhaps it was one of the most important actions that was taken early in this crisis, the Prime Minister was in Kennebunkport for a meeting with the President of the United States. It was a meeting scheduled before this conflict began, before the invasion of Iraq.
There were senior and respected Americans then counselling the President of the United States to engage upon a surgical strike. That was the advice he received. The Prime Minister told him on behalf of Canada that that kind of policy would not be acceptable to Canada and should not be followed by the United States. That gave the world an opportunity to pursue diplomatic and peaceful solutions to this aggression.

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: That was one of several instances in which we have used that bilateral relation with the United States, a relation which some members in this House revile, but which is after all an opportunity for unprecedented influence upon a superpower. We have used that relation to encourage the United States to work with the world in trying to resolve this problem.
A second area in which we have been extremely active has been with respect to the United Nations. Again, let me speak of American attitudes. As the House will know, members here raised their concern to us about it. When this began there was a strong inclination on the part of the Americans to go it alone and not to operate under the aegis of the United Nations. Again, Canada said that was wrong and that if this is to be done effectively and with authority, it must be done under the umbrella of and with the authority of the United Nations.
I would not claim that it was simply because of our counsel, but Canadians need to know that this country has influence upon others, including our great friends, on critical questions. For a variety of reasons, the United States took the decision to operate within the United Nations' context and that is why this debate today is not about what one nation might do. This debate today is about whether this country will support the United Nations in what it has decided to do.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: We have also, of course, been extraordinarily active on the floor of the United Nations in the co-sponsorship of resolutions and, more importantly, in drafting those resolutions, in finding ways in which they can be acceptable and, indeed, in which other resolutions which were important to the progress on this issue could be made to be acceptable.
Because of our unusual situation as an industrial power with connection to the Third World, Canada undertook a series of initiatives based on the understanding that Saddam Hussein, if he would listen to anyone, may well be more prepared to listen to other Third World leaders than he would be to listen to the leaders of the developed world.
The Prime Minister met with Perez de Cuellar in New York when he was there to co-chair the Children's Summit. He made a proposal, based upon the reality that is clear to everyone interested in international development, that the principal victims of this invasion are not exclusively in Kuwait. They are also the poor of the Third World. They are the poor of Senegal, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, and of other countries that, because their standard of living is so basic, depend more than we do upon secure and relatively cheap supplies of oil. Many of these people are Muslim. Many of these people are people whose cause should appeal directly to Saddam Hussein, but we understood that we could not make that case as compellingly ourselves as others could.
The Prime Minister was in touch with President Diouf of Senegal. He is not only the President of the Organization of African Unity, but also the incoming president of the Islamic Conference and the President of La Franco-phonie. President Diouf, at the behest of Canada and, frankly, with some help from Canada, convened meetings of other leaders of the Third World and a mission was ready to go. It was in Paris en route to Baghdad to try to make that kind of appeal when Saddam Hussein called and said he would prefer to have that mission deferred, delayed, until after the visit of Jim Baker, the visit that Saddam Hussein did not allow to happen.
We did not leave it there. President Traore of Mali was the co-president with Canada of the Children's Summit and after conversations between the Prime Minister of Canada and President Traore, his foreign minister went to Baghdad, tried to see if there could be movement, came back and reported to my colleague, the Associate Minister of National Defence, who was here over Christmas, and senior officials to see if there was some movement on that front.
Again we have been active through Commonwealth and francophone and other connections in the Third World because we recognize that we have to do everything possible to try to persuade Saddam Hussein to understand how serious this issue is and how serious the resolve of the world is.
In terms of peacekeeping it may be-it is part of the French plan; it was part of the proposal I submitted on the Prime Minister's behalf to the Secretary-General- that there will be a need for some peacekeeping presence if we are able to secure a withdrawal of Iraqi forces.
January 15, 1991

It certainly would be better if that were largely Arab. Clearly there would also be a need for the kind of expertise that Canada is uniquely qualified to provide. That was raised with us by Egyptian leaders. It was discussed by my colleague, the associate minister, when she was in the region. It was part of the offer made to the United Nations by the Prime Minister in the letter that I delivered the other night.
On the question of an Arab solution, which everyone was seeking during a period of this debate because we thought that other solutions may not work, Canada adopted an aggressive approach to try to encourage Arab leaders to work and to work together. That included, in our view, trying to overcome as a practical matter the difference that existed between King Hussein of Jordan and other Arab leaders because Hussein and Jordan are of fundamental importance in the region in any event, and also because it would be better if we had those nations working together rather than at cross-purposes.
That involved a number of conversations, contacts between the Prime Minister and the King, the Prime Minister and President Mubarak and a number of others. It also involved a visit I was able to make to the region and a long conversation with King Hussein during which we discussed explicitly and at length the question of the hostages and whether it made any sense at all for Saddam Hussein to continue to keep the hostages. I made the case and King Hussein made the case that it did make no sense and two or three days after I left King Hussein told me that he intended to go again to Baghdad. That was the trip when he went again to Baghdad that resulted in proposals from him, from Yasser Arafat and from others that resulted in Saddam Hussein's decision to let all the hostages go.
In terms of consultations, we are in regular daily contact with foreign ministers, heads of government, and a range of other countries, 50 or 60, not just the coalition partners, but others who might have some influence.
The Prime Minister in particular is in regular contact with President Mubarak, King Hussein, President Bush, Prime Minister Major, President Mitterrand and President Gorbachev. In his conversations two days ago with President Mitterrand, there was discussion of the proposals that we had put forward to the Secretary-General, proposals that were not then public, and President Mitterrand indicated at that time that there was a great
Government Orders
deal of similarity in the thinking and the analysis of the French and the Canadian governments.
Those activities of course continue, as was indicated during Question Period, as we try to find if there are ways in the hours, now hours, that remain in this period that was established, this pause for peace that was established, to try to encourage Saddam Hussein to respond to someone.
I had hoped to have them with me and do not at the moment, but I propose later in the day with the agreement of the House to lay upon the table the French and English versions of the letter that the Prime Minister sent to Perez de Cuellar and which I delivered last week.
Those things have been done. They have done by Canada and they have been done by other countries. There has been an extraordinary attempt to solve this diplomatically. But today, January 15, at 3.30 in the afternoon, in Ottawa, we are at an impasse and we are approaching a turning point.
Peace still has a chance, but where once peace might have been an expectation, it is now only a hope, and that hope grows dim with every door that Saddam Hussein slams shut. Canada and the world must face the fact that Iraq may force a conflict.
There are, as we all know, no good wars. War is mankind's least noble invention. Everyone wants to avoid war. At this sombre moment we owe it to Canadians to determine as best we can if the course we are embarked upon is correct and if there are realistic, responsible alternatives. Not waiting, not running away, but real alternatives.
There have been wars in the past where patriotism has overshadowed logic, where pride has prevented peace, where emotion has overcome reason. We must be as confident as we can be, if this comes to war, that it is not one of those wars.
Forty-six years ago, the nations of this world formed an organization, the United Nations, whose primary purpose was to be the maintenance of international peace and security. The men and the women who designed that organization were not idealists. They were realists, realists worn by war, steeped in suffering. They had seen the futility of having rules without having a capacity to enforce those rules. That is futile. The experience of the League of the Nations proved it was futile.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
They knew, as in societies everywhere, rules will only be obeyed if they are enforced and that will, if they are not enforced, will become meaningless, and societies themselves cease to be peaceful for anyone. With the sorry history of the League of Nations behind them and, with the awful consequences of appeasement to guide them, they crafted a charter that would give the world the right and capacity to deter aggression and to reverse it by force, if necessary, when it occurred.
Those purposes permeate the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. But those purposes went unfulfilled for decades because a new war intervened- the cold war-a conflict which turned the United Nations into a mere shadow of what Lester Pearson and its other architects had intended.
So we had wars, dozens of them, conflicts which flourished, because the UN was frozen. With the easing of East-West tensions, old excuses have disappeared and new opportunities have emerged. An opportunity now exists to make the United Nations united, not simply in name, but in fact.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: That has been our accomplishment so far in the response to this crisis. No sir, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, this is not Cypress. This is not Tibet. This is not an area where the United Nations failed, unless its members choose to make it fail. If we choose to make it succeed, we can make the United Nations succeed in this case.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: Our accomplishment so far has been that the Security Council of the United Nations has worked as its architects had intended. The Charter of the United Nations has been acted upon. The process of seeking adherence to resolutions has been followed. We are approaching the moment where our words may have to become deeds. It is a difficult moment. It may be easier now to back away; to act not as we have resolved, but rather to retreat from our principles, to retreat from our promises.
To those who would have us back away, there are also troubling arguments and worrisome questions. Of what value would the United Nations be if we now said we were not serious?
After 12 resolutions, clear and unequivocal, do we say that after all, we were just bluffing? Do we say to future aggressors that all they need do is hunker down and wait us out? Are we hollow in our principles and in our words?
Does Canada, which is not a great power in the scheme of things, say that Kuwait, also not a great power, is expendable? Do we say there are rewards for the ruthless and prizes for the powerful? Do we attempt to justify a wrong by saying that we accepted wrongs in the past and did not act then? Do we say we can do no better than we have done, that the future will be as the past was: scarred by sacrifice, wedded to war?
We are contemplating the destruction of the United Nations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The right hon. member's time has expired.

I invite the right, hon. minister to conclude, unless the House allows him to continue. Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The right hon. Secretary of State.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that extension.
I have just had handed to me the copies in French and English of the letter sent by the Prime Minister to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. If the House is agreed, I would like to lay them upon the table.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if we as Canadians say these things, we are contemplating the destruction of the United Nations and the international order that it now has the chance to build.
January 15, 1991

If we as Canadians say these things, we are betraying the efforts of Louis St. Laurent and Lester Pearson. These are men who had seen war. They were leaders and statesmen in times when 100,000 Canadians had died fighting wars which were undeterred and the origins of which lay in the unwillingness of the world to enforce the rules which all had claimed were universal.
We have to face realities about Canadian attitudes. Perhaps some Canadians are more comfortable with a United Nations that talks and not a United Nations that acts. Perhaps some see it as a place for soap boxes and for UNICEF boxes, and not as a place where the world comes together to take the hard decisions which peace requires.
I see some of, I think, my good friends in the New Democratic Party taking objection to that.
The reality is that the United Nations is a place where very hard decisions have to be taken. For years, it has not been possible to take those decisions.
We are now in a situation where we have acted consistently over time. We have set the stage. We are in a position where there is a need now to decide, and we cannot simply treat the United Nations as a talking shop because that was only half of what the Charter intended.
The United Nations was designed by Mr. Pearson and by others not just to talk, but also to act.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Langdon:: Are sanctions not actions?


Charles Joseph Clark: Someone just across the House called out that we should wait.
I understood the member for Essex-Windsor spoke about sanctions not working and I will come to that.
If the question is are sanctions working to deter the war machine, the answer is no.
I have asked the member to provide evidence he might have and he has not been forthcoming. There are some who say that we have not waited long enough, that perhaps the message has not got through.
Saddam Hussein has had 167 days to contemplate the consequences of his actions. Saddam Hussein knows what he is up against. There was a period when we wondered if that was the case. There can be no doubt about that now because his Foreign Minister, Mr. Tariq Aziz, made that abundantly clear in his remarks to the press after the meeting with Secretary Baker.
Government Orders
If we were to make January 15 a mobile date and extend it to February 15 this year or February 15 next year, by what form of logic could it be argued that Saddam Hussein would treat the resolve of the United Nations more seriously then than he does now?
What about sanctions and giving them more time to work, which is the basic argument for delay as I understand it from the other side? That is an issue which, as the Prime Minister said, has been very seriously considered by the government. There is no doubt that if the international consensus held, the Iraqi economy might be seriously weakened if we waited six months or a year. If the international consensus held, it might in six months or a year, but that is not the end of the argument. There is no guarantee whatsoever that economic weakness would get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. There is every indication from the words and the deeds of Saddam Hussein that thousands of Iraqis, men, women, infants, and thousands of those Kuwaitis whom we seek to liberate would be made to starve before Saddam Hussein would allow his army to suffer.
That regime of terror is not like Canada. It is not a democracy like ours. It is not a place where one regularly reads the public opinion polls; those do not have much hold on Saddam Hussein. In that regime of terror we cannot rely on popular discontent to dissuade a dictator. And during a period of further delay, the plunder of Kuwait would continue, and we could find ourselves trying to free a society which has ceased to exist.
There is a notion sometimes-it was expressed in Question Period-that the choice is between a peaceful present, a peaceful status quo and a terrible war. That is a dangerous, misleading illusion. There is no peaceful status quo.
The gulf region today, the entire Middle East, is incendiary. It is a time bomb of conflict, extremism, and terror. The assassination in Tunis yesterday of of Abu Iyad and Abu Alhol is an example, as was the terrible violence which occurred at the mosque in East Jerusalem in October, the bombings which led to the deaths of pilgrims at Mecca in 1987 and 1989, the riots which rocked Jordan in mid-1989, and the civil war in Lebanon. These, any of them, can become a fuse for frightening carnage and chaos. That tension is immeasurably more acute because of Iraq's aggression. As long as Iraq remains in Kuwait, the time bomb ticks and the world is playing Russian roulette with its own future.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
Outside that region where the volatility is most acute, devastation and deprivation would continue and would accelerate if the world delayed. I am not talking about developed countries like Canada, comfortable countries like ours. I am talking about developing countries whose very existence as functioning societies is at stake. Terrible poverty is being made more and more unbearable. Governments in Africa are going broke and lurching toward disintegration.
When the Prime Minister met with leaders of the front-line states from Africa at the Children's Summit, the irony they were facing is that they had come to that conference to dedicate themselves to extra efforts to help their children, and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq made it impossible not only to turn new moneys there but to keep old moneys there. Those are among the victims of the status quo which some would have us wait and extend.
Inflation rates in some of those developing countries are doubling and tripling. Deficits are ballooning. Basic human needs are not being met. Governments in Africa have asked Canada if they can convert money meant for education to funds to buy basic goods. Their development as societies is in jeopardy, as are so many of the international development programs that we have put in place and are so actively supported by members of this House and the non-governmental community across the country.
These are related problems and we should not blind our eye to one because we are concerned about the consequences of the solution to another.
In eastern Europe, the dramatic escalation in oil prices has become the singular reason why the progress they have made thus far and the progress that must be made in the future is in jeopardy. Finance Minister Klaus of Czechoslovakia told me in November that this crisis had gutted their economic reform plan and cost his country billions. Saddam Hussein does not simply destabilize the gulf. He destabilizes eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Rather than delay, some people say deal.


An hon. member:: There is more oil.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, there is more oil. People are saying there is more oil, but as know what is happening with spot prices. We know what is happening with the cost of oil.


An hon. member:: They are going down.


Charles Joseph Clark: No, they are not going down. They are going up to a lot of the countries we are talking about. What is also going up is the incidence of people who come home, people who used to be working in the gulf and sending money back to help sustain economies in Bangladesh and elsewhere, and that is no longer happening. That is one of several consequences.
Rather than delay, some say deal. Let Saddam claim other victories to justify his aggression. But that, Sir, would be a reward for aggression, an invitation to other conflicts and other tyrants. It would be absurd to give a bank robber the money he had stolen or to take that money back and give him gold instead. Law and order would crumble if societies worked that way. It is no different internationally.
At this very moment plans proposed by France and others, as the House knows, are being discussed in New York. There are more active discussions since questions were raised an hour ago. Although there are important details to clarify, those plans have some very positive elements. As I have said and as the Prime Minister has said, they are similar to a proposal put forward in the letter that has been tabled in this House.
Our proposal contained the following elements, as the House will read: first, an international guarantee of all borders in the gulf area from attack; second, the initiation of a process to settle Iraq's differences with Kuwait, either through existing international agencies or through something created for the purposes; third, the departure from Saudi Arabia of all forces from outside the region and the creation of a peacekeeping force drawn primarily from the Arab states but with the participation of others if that were deemed desirable; and, fourth, a firm commitment in principle to a process to resolve other issues in the Middle East.

Those provisions are at the centre of the proposals now being discussed. What is missing now, indeed what has always been missing, is the trigger that could set all this in motion: an Iraqi commitment to and total withdrawal from Kuwait. The question that has to be asked is: Where is Iraq's response? What is Iraq's attitude?
We are told there are other ways to get Saddam Hussein out. This government and the world, for 167 days, have been trying to find a way to get him out without conflict. I say absolutely seriously if anyone in this House, anyone in this country, has a plausible plan-I am not talking here about a dream; I am talking about a plan-then this government and Canadians need to hear it immediately.
I want to conclude by returning to the fundamental principle at issue here: the defence and construction of a durable structure of international order. That is not a foreign cause to Canadians and it is certainly not a faked cause. That is a Canadian cause. That is a cause worth defending. We are not a great power. We cannot impose order just as we cannot ignore order. We have no choice but to build order with others and to do that co-operatively.
We need that order. We need a co-operative order in trade for our prosperity. We need a co-operative order in security since we cannot provide it ourselves on this huge territory in an age of nuclear weapons. Canadians need co-operative order because its absence would mean the power of the strongest always wins; the law of the jungle as the Prime Minister said this morning.
To build that order, we must work with others. It is not an accident that Lester Pearson and others were so active in drafting the charter of the United Nations and helping to make it work. It is not an accident that Canada has been such a strong proponent of a reformed NATO, a new GATT, a strengthened CSCE, an active Commonwealth, a more effective OAS, a vital la francophonie, and an expanded structure of security dialogue with the Asia-Pacific region.
No other country in the world has been a more active and generous and persistent contributor and supporter of the development of a United Nations system which works.
Government Orders
If the Persian Gulf situation is not resolved in the way the United Nations has demanded, if Saddam Hussein is allowed to keep the spoils of his conquest, then Canadians must accept a United Nations which will fail in the future, a United Nations which will be unable to deter or turn back further aggression, an organization seriously weakened in its ability to help develop countries or to help feed children or to help clean up the environment. The world has just begun to treat the United Nations seriously. Surely, Sir, this is not the time to stop.
In the Persian Gulf, the world has returned to the United Nations. It is not departing from the charter; it is returning to the charter. This is not contrary to peacekeeping. Peacekeeping was invented because the UN did not work, because the great powers did not want it to make peace, but only to supervise truces. Those who invented peacekeeping, Mr. Pearson included, lamented the inability of the world community to make peace. The gulf is about returning to the principle that the best guarantee of peace is the guarantee that aggression will not be accepted.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: Other events fill in this picture. The United States, as I mentioned earlier, has returned to the United Nations. So have others, including the Soviet Union. In so doing, as they came back, national purposes have been modified, compromises have been made, and consensus has been built.
What possible incentive would any great power have in returning to that organization in the future, in making compromises, in seeking consensus, if now, after all of this, after one of the most naked acts of aggression in 50 years is allowed to succeed? What possible Canadian interests does it serve to have unilateral action rewarded whether by Saddam Hussein or other aggressors or by others who would respond to aggression?
I do not want to overstate the case. If there is war in the gulf, it will not be the war to end all wars. But neither do I want to understate the case. There will be no hope to deter aggression, no hope to reverse aggression, no hope to keep peace or to make it co-operatively, if the world fails the United Nations here.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
In his memoirs, Lester Person records one of the saddest episodes of international diplomacy in the 1930s helped sow the seeds of the world war which was to follow. That episode was the consideration by the League of Nations of steps to be taken to counter Italy's unprovoked invasion of Ethiopia, another small country.
Mr. Pearson, who was a Canadian representation at the League of Nations at that time, describes the heady start and the hopeful consensus at the beginning that sanctions should be applied, that Italy's aggression should be reversed. He then catalogues the steady erosion of that consensus, the collapse of resolve as government after government became timid, preoccupied by narrow, self interest. What was to be the salvation of the League of Nations became its downfall and the world lurched toward war. Mr. Pearson concludes his commentary with the following observations, and I quote:
For collective security to have real meaning for peace, all members must be prepared and willing to join in precisely the kind of action, economic and military, which is necessary to prevent or defeat aggression. Otherwise, an aggressor has nothing to fear from the international community but pin-pricks.
That was Lester Pearson on the League of Nations. I say to members of the House of Commons, particularly members of the party that sees itself in that tradition, that we cannot afford a return to pin-pricks that would incapacitate world order now in the way to which unhappily Lester Pearson was a witness decades ago.
Peace, Sir, has a price. Order is not automatic. Security must be secured. Lester Pearson knew that. Canadians should not forget it. I believe there are only two clear choices before us. The first is to defend our principles and in so doing, serve our abiding interest in building an international order which works. The second choice is to avoid conflict at all costs and in so doing, secure a peace which is temporary, a peace which will not endure, a peace purchased at the price of rewarding war. Let this generation, let this United Nations make the right choice, a difficult choice but one which future generations will respect and not ridicule.
I have been involved since the invasion began, intimately, as the Prime Minister and others have, in trying
to find ways in which this can be stopped. The House and the country naturally want to know if there is anything more that the government can do. They deserve our best judgment; a judgment that is confirmed by the pessimism with which Perez de Cuellar came back from Baghdad, a judgment that is shared by world leaders and others who have been involved as intimately as we have in trying to resolve the crisis. That judgment is that we have worked as hard as we can. We have exhausted the realistic options. We have opened door after door which Saddam Hussein has slammed shut. I think that we can, in good conscience now, having done all that we can do to seek a resolution by talk and by diplomacy, be prepared to contemplate giving effect to that other capacity of the United Nations charter, the capacity to use force.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock this morning I received a telephone letter from the students of Parkdale Public School. This is an elementary school. The ages of the students are from four to 15. This is what they are passing on to this House of Commons through their member of Parliament.
The letter reads: "Dear Mr. Flis: Peace is not a word. It is our future. War is a cowardly excuse for people's unwillingness to discuss positively our mutual problems. It is not the only way out. We hope that there is no war because we do not want any brothers, sisters, fathers or mothers to die. No war please. Give peace a chance." It is signed, "Yours truly, students and staff, Parkdale Public School."
I would like to ask the Secretaiy of State for External Affairs, in his response, what answer he would give these students. I think he partly answered the students concerns in his speech. He said that the United Nations is no longer a talking place. It is a place to act.
Are not sanctions a powerful action? He stated that our leader and our party are not providing any evidence the sanctions are working. I remind him when the three members of Parliament from all three parties returned from Iraq, they gave all kinds of evidence the factories that produced parts were running. Now after the sanctions, these same factories are standing still. Common sense would tell everyone that something is lacking in world leadership today. Common sense would tell you

that if one allows these sanctions more, something that is lacking in world leadership today, time, they will suffocate Iraq. They will run out of parts to repair their tanks. Common sense would tell us to give the sanctions more time to work.


Charles Joseph Clark: I believe I heard questions and not just commentary. I will try to answer both. I take very seriously, as I know the member does, the concern of children on this issue. It is obviously a matter which profoundly unsettles them more than it does adults. Everyone in this House wants to give peace a chance. The issue is how we can most effectively do this.
We have come to the view, not easily, that the best way to give peace a chance is to try to use the organization that is the only one we have and one which was established precisely for the purpose of trying, first, to direct the negotiations, for the settlement of this war by peaceful means and then to take other actions when those discussions appear not to work. Saddam Hussein would not go to see Baker or Bush, and when Aziz did, he would not even receive the letter from the President of the United States to be transmitted to the President of Iraq.
When the Secretary-General of the United Nations went on that arduous journey to Baghdad, he was turned away, turned away to the point that when he came back through Paris he spoke to other people who genuinely wanted to go if he thought that would be helpful and he said in effect they should not waste their time. The best way to give peace a chance is to use the instrument that we built to establish peace, which is the United Nations.
On the question of sanctions, unquestionably there has been some effect. But we are not aiming our sanctions at ordinary Iraqis who are working in the streets and who have enough troubles. Surely the target of our sanctions is Saddam Hussein and the military machine that he runs. I have seen no evidence-I have looked for it-that there is any appreciable effect upon his military capacity.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party, I believe, or someone from that party was, referring to observations by American officials-she has just been to the United
Government Orders
States and has come back informed-referring to the possibility that something might begin to take effect in six months or in nine months, and that there might be some deterioration in some part of their military capacity. What happens during that time? We believe that sanctions are essential but sanctions are not sufficient. What we need is a combination of sanctions and diplomacy or sanctions and other actions when diplomacy has the result that unfortunately it has had, being turned aside so consistently by Saddam Hussein.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs for a very forceful speech. He was forceful 90 per cent of the time, unfortunately, in my view, to an argument that was frankly spurious. No one in this House disputes the need to deal with Saddam Hussein. No one in this House disputes the need to deal with Saddam Hussein as effectively as possible. The issue that divides us is how.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs in his last comment, in answer to the question just put to him, seemed to suggest, as I heard him, that there was no evidence that sanctions would have an effect on the military might of Iraq. With the greatest respect, that simply is not correct. The evidence before the United States Congress from the CIA, which has already been referred to in debate, suggests the contrary.
Even more recent evidence published this morning in The Globe and Mail, a reprint from the New York Times, which I assume the minister has had drawn to his attention, but if it has not then let me also put it on the record of the House. It is an article by Gary Hufbauer and Kimberly Elliott. It is a recount of a detailed study made of sanctions since the First World War. Of 115 cases studied, it was found that in 34 per cent sanctions were highly successful. It says in respect of Iraq that in all the circumstances sanctions would have an even greater chance of being successful. I quote:
Since the estimated cost to Iraq-48 per cent of its gross national product-is so far beyond that observed in other cases, the initial results placed the probability of success at nearly 100 per cent. Even when the model is adjusted to account for Saddam Hussein's exceptionally tyrannical control, and the estimated cost is, say, halved to 24 per cent of GNP, the probability of success remains above 85 per cent.

Government Orders
They go on to say:
Critics argue that sanctions are useless against a ruthless dictator who doesn't care what price his people must pay. Yet sanctions have been employed successfully against dictators of all stripes-
He then notes the regimes of Trujillo, Diem, Idi Amin and Somoza in the seventies.
They conclude:
The evidence suggests that sanctions will begin to bite sometime in the spring or early summer, with a high probability of forcing Iraq from Kuwait by next fall.
The Manchester Guardian states: "All of the evidence is that sanctions can and are likely to have the effect of moving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait if we just give time."
The minister says there is no guarantee to that effect. He said that in his speech. There is no guarantee that war will move Saddam Hussein or his ilk permanently out of Kuwait, that it will provide the solution to the region that is necessary in those circumstances.
How can the minister justify Canada supporting war at this time?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very careful about language.
He would know the difference between evidence and a projection. He referred to evidence, as his leader had, from the CIA, and I referred to her reference to it. I think the timeframe mentioned was six months to nine months. I doubt that it would have been in the minds of the authors to suggest that that effect would have been appreciable. There is no evidence of any appreciable effect in the foreseeable future.
With respect to The Globe and Mail article, yes, I have seen it. It is a projection, and I am not here to dispute the social scientists' projections. In other fields, we have known what to do with projections, and it may well turn out to be correct.
It makes some assumptions about Iraq. One of those assumptions has to do with our capacity to maintain the extraordinary degree to which sanctions have been honoured. Among other things, it is a question of whether that willingness to enforce sanctions and adhere to them on the part of a lot of countries will continue.
There are cases, as the member knows, where that would continue if there appeared to be a weakening in the resolve of the United Nations, if it talked about a deadline tonight and then was looking for ways to avoid the consequences of its actions. I think that is an important question in the context of the basis upon which projections were raised.
To be clear, I am not saying that sanctions have had absolutely no impact. Obviously sanctions have had an impact on large elements of Iraqi life. They just do not get to where they need to get. They do not get to Saddam Hussein or his military.
Yes, it may in time, and that is precisely the question we have to deal with. How much time can we take? What happens in the interim?


An hon. member:: What happens if war?


Charles Joseph Clark: Of course, what happens if war. We have to ask those questions and we try to do that.
What I hope the House and the country will understand is that while we have some understanding, because of what we have grown up with and have seen of the terrible consequences of war, there are also terrible things happening now. A terrible thing happened to Kuwait.
I have seen intelligence estimates by a country whose government the hon. member would respect, suggesting there could be as many as two million new refugees thrown into an already over-burdened refugee system very soon as a result of this.
There are all sorts of grievous things happening now. I hope that as this House and this country consider what we have to do, we will look both at the investment Canada has always had in the effectiveness of the United Nations and the charter that we helped devise which authorizes force, and also look at the costs of waiting.
There are extraordinarily high costs of waiting just as there are, admittedly, extraordinarily high costs of acting.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, during the debate which started this morning, there was a conversation that kept coming back to me that I had with one of the Canadians who had been forcibly detained in Baghdad. He said to me in that conversation that one of the consequences of all this is that Canada will lose its innocence. He went on to explain that it would no longer be possible for Canadians to see themselves in a world where, by wearing a little
January 15, 1991

maple leaf on our lapel, that we would be seen as boy scouts and that we would have open access. All of a sudden, we would have the scales drop from our eyes and we would now see ourselves in a world where there can be ruthless dictators detaining internationals.
I do not need anyone in the House to lecture me or tell me about how bad Saddam Hussein is, because I see it with my own eyes. My argument is not because I have any illusions about the regime in Iraq, or the nature of what they are doing in Kuwait, or in any way the kind of genteel society which he tries to run. It is none of those.
At the same time, the reality, that loss of innocence, has to bring about wisdom and it has to bring about judgment. It has to mean that you do not fall into old traps, that you use your brains and your mind to understand what is going on. You do not simply listen to the bell and respond in a Pavlovian fashion. You have to sit back and take a hard look at what you are facing.
I have here about 700 letters which I have received in the last three or four days from Canadians who are asking this government, and this Parliament to stop and take care, to watch carefully because they do not believe that the right role and direction for Canada at this time is to engage in hostilities against Saddam Hussein. They say very clearly that that does not represent Canadian values. When we talk about this new international order that has been bandied about in the House today they say: "Remember what it means to Canadians."
We are not a great power. We do not equate greatness with military might. We do not say that it is the right of our country to command respect by the force of arms, but more by the nature of our contributions for peaceful resolution. We are not a formal Imperial power. We are not a colonial power. We do not dictate, as the French and British did, the false boundaries of the Middle East.
If one wants to be a historian and go back to the problems of the Middle East, go back to the First World War when the Arab countries were induced to fight on the side of the Allies because they said they would get their independence. Then, they were treated with treachery by the colonial powers and were not given their independence at that time.
Government Orders
We do not reflect those values. In fact, we reflect the opposite. If there is anything contained in every single one of these pages, it is a plea for new thinking and a new approach. We do not see it in the debate that we have had so far from the government. It is falling into the traditional trap of preparing for peace by preparing for war. It does not believe in the philosophy that in this new world order one can prepare for peace actually by preparing for peace.
Members of the government cite Lester Pearson with great frequency. There is one phrase I think they should remember from Lester Pearson in his Nobel Prize speech. He said that nations prepare for war like precocious giants, but for peace like retarded pygmies. I can tell you that that phrase has run through my mind as I listened to the speech of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State this afternoon.
They have been so anxious and so concerned about knocking down, destroying, and eliminating the idea that there is another way to deal with Iraq, that there is another UN way of dealing with it, and that, if the only answer today is force, they have forgotten that they are trying to build up some kind of equation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they have not been honest enough to say that they prefer force, but that those who have a different way and who also believe in the United Nations and collective security but do not happen to agree that military instruments are the only way of having the UN work or having collective security exercised.
Let us talk about the Pearsonian tradition for just one moment. In 1935, when Lester Pearson was a member of the League of Nations, what did he object to? The fact that they should abandon economic sanctions. Not that they went to war, but that they abandon economic sanctions. He also writes in his memoirs how economic sanctions could have worked, should have worked, and would have been an effective international tool to stop aggression, but the country let them alone.
Are we not in a similar case today? Are we not in a similar case when, in those halcyon days of August 2 and August 6, the world community said: "There is an act of aggression and we are going to stop it." Then we

Government Orders
imposed economic sanctions and there was a commitment by a broad consensus of the world community to get behind it. Some 30-odd countries sent forces to the gulf to implement those sanctions. We really did believe that we were now turning the comer and that we were headed in a different direction.
Then, come November- I can recall the week well-first, there was an announcement by President Bush that he was doubling the forces in the gulf, from 200,000 to half a million. No explanation, but here they go. What was the reason? What was the rationale? Did he say then that sanctions had failed? No. He just said: "I am doubling the number of troops."
Then, the Secretary of State walked into the external affairs committee meeting and said: "Boy, sanctions are not good any more. They were great last week, but they are not any good this week. Therefore, we now have to contemplate the use of force."
What happened? What took place? What careful calculation went on in the White House, in the Department of External Affairs, and in White Hall to say sanctions were no longer working? They did not tell anybody, but that was clearly the demarcation line.
I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of something that is also very important about the Pearsonian tradition. Because of his experience, and because of the experience of other statesmen of his period through the League of Nations, when they came to be the architects of the UN Charter, they carefully prescribed the steps through the charter that one took if sanctions no longer worked.
Article 41 very clearly states that the United Nations has the right to establish economic sanctions. That is under the charter. It then states very clearly in Article 42 that the Security Council must decide that sanctions are no longer working and then consider other means. That is in the charter of the United Nations. Is that what has been followed by this government? Not a bit.
For all the patting on the back, the pounding on the chest, the raising of the flag, and the whistling of the tune about how we are supporting the UN, why are we abandoning the charter of the United Nations? Why are we abandoning the Pearsonian tradition? Why are we abandoning the lessons of the League of Nations that are
clearly written under that charter? It is there for a reason.
Mr. Pearson and others understood very well that there has to be accountability in decision making at the international level. There must be legitimacy of decision making. You do not turn over decisions to some other country to decide for everybody else. Especially as a statesman of a smaller power, he recognized that the best protection for small and medium sized powers, was not to let great powers use international institutions as their camouflage their subterfuge to be able to manipulate and change the rules of those organizations to support their own interests.
That is the Pearsonian tradition, not what the Prime Minister was talking about and not what the Secretary of State for External Affairs was talking about. The real tradition is written in the charter which this government is now preparing to short-circuit and not follow.
When they got up in the House with all this crocodile kind of rhetoric about how they are prepared to defend the UN, they were not prepared to answer the simple question of why had they evaded the charter of the UN.
Why were they not a voice last November and December when there was a resolution coming forward to insist that any power that wants to use force, that thinks it is no longer appropriate, should use the charter as well? Where was the voice of Canada? Where were the inheritors of the Pearsonian tradition when it was saying to the United States and other great powers: "If you want to use the United Nations, use it as set out in the charter. Don't avoid it. Don't evade it. Don't short-circuit it. Give it legitimacy and credibility."
That should have been the role of Canada. That should have been the inherent tradition of our leaders at the time, but, of course, they were too busy answering the call.
I do not buy this idea that we must adhere to it, because beyond Article 42 is Article 43. It states that if one uses force, then one establishes a UN command and starts planning it. Then one makes specific requests of countries. There is a series of veiy well prescribed procedures by which the United Nations will finally make a decision to use military action against an aggressor, none of which are being followed today and none of which are being adhered to by our country or by other countries in the United Nations.
January 15, 1991

If we are really sincere in our adherence to the principles of the UN, then the first principle starts with the charter of the United Nations. That is why we object strenuously to giving blank cheques to the government to go ahead and do what it wants to do, when in fact it is clear that it has been guilty of a very serious error and sin of omission.
What I find incredible and disturbing to listen to, and about which I am distraught at the kind of argument, is the way members of the government have talked in such a facile and cavalier fashion about going to war.
The Secretary of State says there are some costs to pay. What kind of costs are we talking about? My God, when we are talking to Canadians about what they are facing in the next 24 hours or the next week, what kind of costs are we really talking about? Military casualties in the thousands. Civilian casualties of untold nature.
The Secretary of State says: "Look at the atrocities going on in Kuwait." I bleed for them. I feel badly for them. But what is worse? To kill them, to bomb them, to destroy the country? Is that a better solution? To totally wipe out their lives, and not just their lives but the lives of countless hundreds of thousands of others? Is that the preferred solution of the government? Is that really defending their civil rights and liberties?
With regard to discovering the reality, in terms of losing our innocence, we should be asking ourselves why it is that we did not hear the brave words we are hearing today a few short months ago when Saddam Hussein was gassing thousands upon thousands of Kurds in his own country. There were atrocities then and I did not hear any call to arms at that point in time. I did not hear any call to arms when Saddam Hussein was fighting against Iran and we thought he was a good guy because he was taking on those crazy fundamentalists such as Ayatollah Khomeini. We said: "Hey, go to it, Saddam. You're doing our job for us in the Middle East."
We were prepared to accept that, not only to accept it but we were selling them weapons and giving them food credits. The West Germans were helping him build his nuclear technology and the French were selling him jets. The Americans were having a wonderful time with him.
Government Orders
It was only two or three days prior to the invasion of Kuwait that Saddam Hussein had an interview with the U.S. Ambassador about the major borders dispute, and she said: "I am under instruction to tell you that that is purely an Arab matter in which we have no interest." Holy cow! Wow!
Where were the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State then? Why were we not standing up and saying: "My goodness, me, look at this affront to international law that is taking place. Look at what is happening. Quick, let's get out there. Let's get the troops mobilized." No, it was total silence. Nothing was said.
I am not saying that that past wrong should be repeated. What I am saying is let us recognize our own guilt and our own culpability as western nations in creating the Saddam Hussein's of the world by selling them arms and by giving them license to continue his kind of political adventurism without any restraint because he happens to be supporting our objectives at that time. That is what was going on.
How can we justify that kind of action now? It is not only human casualty and human suffering that will be felt. Just think of the political catastrophe that will occur. Do you think that by beating Iraq into the ground that all of a sudden there will be the gentle flowing of milk and honey down the Tigris and Euphrates? No, sirree, Mr. Speaker. The Syrians and the Iranians are going to be moving in to fill the political vacuum.
One of the questions we have to ask is, are we prepared to spill Canadian blood to help the Syrians and Iranians exercise further domination in the Middle East? Is that one of the objectives that the government is setting out? Let's hear from them. Is that what we are after? I tell you that political vacuum will be there and it will be filled.
What happens in terms of the Secretary of State for External Affairs saying: "Well, let us really consider how awful sanctions are that we have to wait and there will be instability and economic deprivation"? Do you think you can recreate and reconstruct the entire Middle East of Jordan collapsing within 24 hours by a full invasion of both sides? How much money will it take to rebuild that

Government Orders
poor country? How much money will it take to rebuild the oilfields that will be destroyed within hours? How much will it take to repair the ecological damage that will be felt right around the world? When will the bills start being paid for that? How much are we prepared to pay and how much are we prepared to absorb in terms of trying to deal with a serious and sort of controllable problem of terrorism around the world?
How do we as a country, as part of a western community, say to the massive numbers of Arabs around the world that somehow this was an act of charity to go in and bomb the hell out of their countries? Are we prepared to suggest to them that somehow this war will be a solution to those problems? I would put this thesis on the floor of the House. Totally contrary to the arguments of the government that this is a way to defend the UN, I say this is a way that will bring down and erode the UN. How do you convince millions upon millions of people in the Third World that this is not simply another exercise of great power domination covered over and camouflaged to protect oil interests, to protect geopolitical interests, to protect national interests in the gulf?
The United Nations is not the private preserve of western countries. The United Nations belongs to every single group of people in the world and it must enjoy the respect of people in the south. No wonder the real dangers that we face in the years ahead is the growing division between north and south, the growing economic gap, the growing gap of poverty, and the growing gap of power. Do you think that by turning the United Nations over as a way of attacking on this issue, using force against people of this kind, that we will convince people of the southern part of the globe that we are sort of beknighted and benign? Of course not.
Let us take a clear look at the cost of war. Let us be honest and forthright and calculate what it means in human terms, in economic and ecological terms and basic political terms. I want to contrast that against the role of sanctions.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are giving me notice of time. I think we were courteous enough to give the Secretary of State for External Affairs some extended time, so I presume I might ask for the same privilege of members opposite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the House agree that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre shall continue?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member has the floor.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of hon. members of the House and we will reciprocate on any occasion possible.
I want to talk about sanctions for a moment because this is where the crux of the debate comes in. This is not a debate, a nuance that has been presented of those who want UN action against those who are prepared to be pacifists and sit on the sidelines.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, I thought in quite a malevolent way, started saying "hey, folks, this is a choice between action or talk." No, no, that is not the choice. The choice is between what kind of action? What are the most effective action? What is the most effective instruments we can produce? That is the real issue. That is what it is all about.
Then he goes on to say: "Show me". Well, I want to turn it around. It is clear to me that the onus of proof for those who want to undertake military action about whether or not sanctions are working belongs to them. They must prove that sanctions are not working in order to justify the use of force. They must demonstrate that it is not working.
When sanctions were introduced by the UN Security Council, a special committee was established of which Canada was a vice-chair. Its job was to monitor and assess the effectiveness of sanctions. That committee has yet to report. It has not given an assessment yet, and I must say for all I respect the Secretary of State for External Affairs in terms of his experience, if not his logic, I am not prepared to take his word for it.
I do not think that Canada should be going to war on the opinion of the Secretary of State about whether or not sanctions are working. I want to see a very clear-cut assessment made under the Charter, because the steps are all set out as to whether the sanctions are properly being applied, used and effective enough.

I will offer my own personal opinion, and I would suggest that it may be just as good as the opinion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs because I was in Iraq. He was not. I put that on the table. I was there.
I do not pretend I saw everything or went everywhere, but we were there for 12 days and we had a lot of time between meetings, and that was the question we kept asking.
Even the Secretary of State for External Affairs concedes our point that there is a substantial erosion in foodstuffs, in the economy, and in the industrial capacity of the country. Inflation is hundreds upon hundreds per cent. A can of beer costs $32. It is the best place to dry out in the world.
Unemployment is now 40 or 50 per cent. Why? All the factories are shutting down. They are cannibalizing cars and trucks to get spare parts. They cannot refine their petroleum. They no longer have additives, because everything is imported.
While the Secretary of State for External Affairs dismisses the Brookings study-he says: "Ah, it does not mean anything"-it points out very clearly the linkage between economics and military. I think I am being fair paraphrasing it. The argument is: Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. He will let his poor people starve, and he is immune and isolated from any impact.
He is not immune from supplying gasoline to his army. He is not immune from aeroplanes that no longer have spare parts. He is not immune from the kind of basic wherewithal that makes an economy work.
Why, in the Second World War, did we have B-17s and Lancaster bombers leaving Great Britain every night to bomb the hell out of Dresden and Cologne, every major industrial city in Germany? Because we wanted to destroy its industrial capacity so it could no longer fight a war. That was the stated objective of the strategic bombing program for which countless Canadians, including one of my uncles, gave their lives in a worthy cause.
Government Orders
All of a sudden, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the military genius that he is, says: "That no longer counts for anything. There is no connection between the economy and the military. There is no linkage any more."
I think he is dead wrong. He is simply using that as sort of a canard, a false argument, because he realizes and recognizes that his only way of justifying military action which the government became committed to last November is that they can assert that sanctions are not working.
I am prepared to debate with the Secretary of State for External Affairs any place, any time and anywhere in this country about that. I will tell him something else. Let's not worry about it. Let us do it properly. Let's go through the United Nations, the way it is supposed to go. What is the use?
This is a government that says it wants to defend the UN. Okay. Let's work through the UN. That is what it is there for, but it has not been followed up to now.
To take it one step further, I challenge the government today-good citizens that we are internationally-to call a meeting of all the coalition partners, which are presently exercising a monitoring function in the gulf on the sanctions program. Let's bring them together and say: "Is it working or not, folks?"
Let's get their assessment. Let's get it out in public, and let's ask them: "How can we tighten it up? How can we improve it? How can we ratchet the pressure on? How can we squeeze them harder?"
Let's have a kind of international mission. The Secretary of State for External Affairs says he wants ideas. Okay. Let's take some initiative. Let's see how sanctions can really be put to work. He says: "We do not have time. We are in a rush. We are in a big hurry." He says: "It is too costly. We have to keep those people out in the gulf. It is going to hit our budgets."
From 1948 on, the western countries maintained close to 1 million troops in western Europe on the threat of a Soviet invasion. It cost Canada $1 billion a year. For 45 years we kept them there. We never used them, thank God, because we knew if we used them it could bring about nuclear exchanges and all their dangers.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
We kept them there. We were patient. We realized it was a sacrifice and a burden, but we did not even have sanctions on the Soviet Union. We were selling them wheat at the same time.
What would happen if the United States reduced its troops substantially, had a defensive posture in Saudi Arabia, maintained the sanctions, put more squeeze on and said: "Okay, Saddam Hussein, hands up baby because we are going to get you. You are going to have to capitulate. You are going to have to give in because you cannot sell any oil. You have no more foreign reserves. It is just not only a matter of starving your people, but you cannot get your heart operations. You cannot drive your trucks. You cannot do anything any more." Mr. Speaker, I tell you that Saddam Hussein would be at the table soon enough. But he will not be there under 678 because we say that is an ultimatum. I guess if you know anything about Arab politics, and I do not pretend to be an expert, you do not force their backs to the wall, you do not say, "lose face", you do not say, "give in right away" and "Here is the time, and if you do not do it now we are going to hold a gun to your head". That is not the way to bring about a peaceful solution.
Just let the squeeze take place, just keep rationing going. That is the argument I would make and that is the kind of argument Canada should have been making during that period of time.
I could cite a variety of supports. There is one, though, which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. It was sent to me by a group of researchers at the Centre for International Strategic Studies at York University, and talks about the choices, sanctions versus others. Let me just comment on this because these are experts with no axe to grind.
They said an economic blockade and boycott have unique advantages over a military attack because, first, acquiring nuclear weapons are of little use against an economic blockade. Second, the target nation cannot reply in kind in any effective way. If you are Iraq, how the hell do you put an economic embargo on the United States? It is impossible to retaliate. Third, blockades and boycotts work slowly. This is an advantage as events are less likely to run out of control. Fourth, they allow negotiations to proceed even while economic pressure is being applied; military action interrupts negotiations. Boy, that is an understatement.
They go on to say that, fifth, they are highly reversible and one can ratchet the strictness up or down in response to diplomatic progress. That is an important point and let us not forget that. The good thing about sanctions is you can reward response and you can punish lack of action. We have not used sanctions that way. We have not turned the screws to tighten them and released them. For example, I make this case: there was a lost opportunity by this country and others when Saddam Hussein released the hostages. There was an opportunity there for us to respond, just a little bit. Maybe we could have said food and medical supplies could go through more freely. There were real shortages and a real squeeze in that country so we could have said: "All right, you are releasing the hostages, that answers one part of the UN resolution," a very important part.
That was the time to relent perhaps a little, ease the pressure. That might have got some kind of response but, no sir, that very day the President of the United States said: "Hey, the hostages are gone, good; now we can go in an bomb the hell out of Baghdad". That was the response not "Let's use sanctions as a way of giving it a little bit of a lurch, a twist a spin". No, no, he said: "Now we can bomb". So, Saddam Hussein said: "Hey, I just released the hostages. You have been asking me. You have had all these crazy parliamentarians coming here for months. We finally listened to them and let the hostages out." Why did we not show some response? Why did we not show some initiative?
The fact of the matter is, as I have just gone through this kind of analysis, that sanctions do have a lot of advantages. Perhaps the biggest advantage is that you do not kill a lot of people with sanctions. You do not destroy countries with sanctions. You do not destroy an entire region with sanctions. I do not care what the Secretary of State for External Affairs says, by any reasonable, logical, common-sense calculation, putting the balance sheet down in black and white, adding up what is the preferred method of getting Saddam Hussein to withdraw, I would say sanctions and diplomacy versus military action will win every single time.
To give up so early and so quickly and to abandon sanctions right now means that the international community can never use sanctions in the future because Iraq was such an ideal opportunity, according to the Brookings study, which showed that perhaps there is no country more vulnerable to sanctions than Iraq. In a sense, if you wanted a model to test, here it was and we have given up on it within four or five months. When are
January 15, 1991

we going to be able to use it again? Does this mean that from now on, every single time there is an act of aggression, the international community is going to war? The entire world is going to be a garrison state. We will not just have conscription from 18 years old to 40 years old. Mr. Speaker, you and I will have to join up, simply to meet that kind of requirement.


An hon. member:: We don't believe that.


An hon. member:: Not to worry.


Lloyd Axworthy: My colleagues are suggesting that, for the sake of the Canadian Armed Forces, I should not join. I agree with that. That is the real calculation. That is what Canadians out there are asking about.
I just want to raise one final point about the condition that we face if there are hostilities in the next short while. I pray to God there are not. I pray to God that whatever is taking place this afternoon works. But if there are hostilities, when the judgment comes, what is the role of Canada? Should we march into the barricades waving the flag, not the UN flag but whatever flag it happens to be? We do not know which flag it is going to be. It could be the Saudi flag, the American flag, some flag, but not the UN flag.
I make this case to members opposite. The contribution we can make in a military sense is minuscule. We have got good airplanes. We have wonderful armed services personnel, but in the over-all weight of military action our contribution is small. It is small at least when we weigh it against the contribution we can make in the political, diplomatic sense. Wars have to come to an end. Cease-fires have to be negotiated, truces have to be honoured, peacekeeping has to take place, bridges have to be built, reconstruction has to occur, and that is the peculiar Canadian talent. That is the kind of capacity and ability we have nurtured and built up over the years. That is what Canadians want to support. For us to become a combatant, for us to be on the front lines, will destroy and eliminate the ability of Canada to play that kind of role.
The Prime Minister said this morning: "I don't see why we couldn't peacekeep". Do you think, Mr. Speaker, in the Suez crisis that the Egyptians would have accepted
Government Orders
the French or the British as a peacekeeper in those circumstances? What kind of convoluted logic is the Prime Minister using? What kind of cuckoo-land does he draw his ideas from? You do not become a peacekeeper when you have been shooting at the other side. You have to be there as a neutral or at least as a non-combatant at the back side.
Certainly we heard this morning about the threat that might occur to Israel if there is a war. First, let us understand one thing about Saddam Hussein. He said: "I am only going to attack Israel if I am attacked". There is one way to make sure Israel is not attacked by Iraqi missiles, and that is not to have hostilities against Iraq. That is the way to prevent it from happening. But, if it does happen, then surely to God we realize that the conflagration is going to spread like wild fire and someone is going to come in and say: "There has got to be a cease-fire", someone is going interpose themselves and say: "We can't have a war."
Mr. Speaker, I make the case to you. Goodness gracious, this is what this country has been able to do over the years. At this crucial time in history, let us not abandon that approach. When they talk about the Pearsonian tradition, that is the Pearsonian tradition; not a great power, not a military band wagon, not something gargantuan that is going to throw its weight around, but a country that understands that bridges have to be built both in war and peace. That is what we want Canada to do.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs ended his speech with the question of what should we do. I suggest that he listen to Canadians. I suggest that he start reading his letters. I suggest that he start listening to his phone calls. I think he should start understanding that there are Canadians out there who are not afraid, who are patriotic, and who believe in the world order but who do not believe in going to war because it is not the Canadian way. It is not the Pearsonian way. It is not the kind of traditions that we have built up.
Thousands upon thousands of Canadians are writing every one of us. I ask Tory members to read their mail, listen to those calls and see what Canadians are saying. They are saying: "Do not go to war".

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
In the Gospel of Saint Matthew it says: "Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be the children of God". I say to you, Mr. Speaker, blessed are today's peacemakers because they will preserve and maintain the sanctity of life of the children of God all around this world. That is the way that we should behave as a country to protect the children of this world. The way that we can do it is to stay true to our traditions, our values, and our beliefs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House leader.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the three parties and as many of the Independents as I was able to contact. I believe Your Honour will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment until 12:00 midnight, in order to continue debate on Government Business No. 27 respecting the Persian Gulf crisis;
That the proceedings on Private Members' Business be suspended and this day's scheduled item retain its place on the Order of Precedence on the Order Paper,
That no dilatory motions or motion to adjourn the House or quorum calls be received by the Chair; and
That at 12:00 midnight, the House shall adjourn until 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, January 16, 1991 and when the Orders of the Day are called, the House shall resume debate on Government Business No. 27.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to receive that motion?


Mr. Milliken:: Mr. Speaker, with one brief caveat. I think at three o'clock tomorrow there will be Routine Proceedings called first and, upon government business being called, the debate will be resumed. Otherwise, we are in full agreement with the motion.


Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, there is full agreement on behalf of the New Democratic Party too.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, this is not a caveat. I understand the parliamentary secretary's motion. I am in agreement because I guess the intent is to continue the debate until all members have had a chance to speak and we will see tomorrow at six o'clock what we do then.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm first of all that yes, we would follow the normal Routine Proceedings
tomorrow afternoon at three o'clock. It is certainly our intention at this point to have this debate continue to give every member an opportunity to participate in it. It is an important debate, and that is precisely why we asked that the House be called back so that members could participate in it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I gather there is unanimous consent to put the motion. The House has heard the terms of the motion presented by the parliamentary secretary. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is so ordered.
We will now proceed to the question and comment ten-minute period.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

I think the hon. member has given a very powerful speech and made a number of points. However, the points with respect to sanctions I find to be very strongly advanced. I find there is a great deal of validity in what the hon. member says about the importance and the role of sanctions in a situation like this one. I will return to this subject at greater length when I am speaking in this debate myself and pursue further the points he has made.
There is one area that I would ask him to clarify at this time, and that is with respect to his statements regarding the resolutions that have been passed by the Security Council of the United Nations and his apparent suggestion that these resolutions were somehow in violation of the UN charter itself.
Clearly these resolutions were not passed in any vacuum. They were passed after they had been drafted by members of the Security Council and examined certainly by the Secretary-General of the UN and his staff, his legal advisors whose responsibility it is to see that resolutions are not only in accordance with the wording of the charter, but in fact further the intent and purpose of the charter.
January 15, 1991

It is on this specific point that I hope that he would bring the same forthright expression of his views to bear as he has on the question of sanctions. I find it a difficult position for the Parliament of Canada to be debating the resolution we are when an argument is being advanced by a front-line spokesman for the Liberal Party and someone with a lot of knowledge about this subject, contending that these resolutions, which form the basis of the collective approach that all the nations are taking against the Iraqi occupation and annexation of Kuwait, are somehow inconsistent with the charter.
I have a lot of trouble with that point. I ask him if he can clarify it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his comments. I will attempt to clarify the point I was making.
In my speech I did not say all resolutions. I said that the resolutions beginning with 660 up to those which require the different participating countries to monitor and enforce the sanctions for military purposes were in accordance with the charter, using article 41 under chapter VII. It is with resolution 678 that I have trouble, because under the charter article 41 clearly states that the Security Council is empowered to advance an economic embargo and that member states are required to adhere to it.
Article 42 states that the Security Council must then consider whether the sanction or embargo is working and, if in its judgment it is not working, it triggers articles 43, 44, 45, and 46, which is to engage in the development of a military action. This means the setting up of a UN military high command which then requests from individual countries contributions of both air and ground troops. It then puts that package together and says that it is now prepared to use military action.
That would have been both the preferred method and the method that we should have advocated as Canadians. First, it sets out a clear protection that accountability and decision making in determining whether or not sanctions are working are for the UN to make. Second, the decision on military force is again that of the UN Security Council, and the military high command is subject to it. That in fact was what took place in the Korean war.
Government Orders
What we are saying is that 678 is a hybrid resolution. I am not saying it violates. I am saying it is hybrid. It is outside that very clear-cut set of procedures under chapter VII in articles 41, 42, et cetera. That is what gives me great concern, in that we are sort of buying resolution 678 as being the answer when I think it creates serious problems for us as Canadians. First, there is no mechanism for deducing or judging whether or not sanctions are working and the UN has not in any way dealt with that issue. It has not given any kind of assessment, publicly at least, on that issue as it is required to do under articles 41 and 42.
Second, resolution 678 leaves it up to individual initiatives to use military force. That creates, as my colleague said today in Question Period, substantial confusion as to who is in command, who is in control, and who makes decisions. For many countries that are quite nervous about this fact it is turning over a kind of UN mandate to a couple of large countries to determine how to use it.
That is why I find 678 to be a maverick resolution and one that I think we should have objected to. I still think that we should have time to go back and say: "Now that the January 15 date has been met, let's bring the charter into play. Let's use 42, 43 and 44." That does not in any way back off from the clear message to Saddam Hussein that if sanctions do not work and he does not clear out ultimately there may be military action, but it will be done clearly under the UN charter and not outside it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most remarkable aspects of the gulf crisis is the unanimity of the international community on the need for ending the occupation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. There is no better example of the post-cold-war situation than the debates in the UN Security Council, where delegates from Canada, the United States and the Soviet Union voted together to support the most strongly worded resolutions to come out of the Security Council since the Korean War.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is how the drafters of the United Nations charter wanted the organization to function. Now that the paralyzing effects of the cold war have subsided, a new world order where collective security would play a major role is becoming a distinct possibility.
The invasion of Kuwait has reminded us that despite considerable improvements in East-West relations, wars and armed conflict are still a fact of life in many parts of the world. More than any other area on this planet, the Middle East has tended to be a focus for this type of conflict. The history of the area is rife with dispute and controversy. Unfortunately, mediation in this part of the world has proved extremely difficult.
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is as easy to understand as it is unacceptable. What we have here is clearly a form of expansionism, a desire to gain supremacy over the entire area. A unanimous response on the part of the international community is the right way to deal with this kind of situation. The importance of the Middle East, where events have global repercussions, makes it necessary for us to be part of this joint response and thus for Canada to do its share.
I think most of us have a good idea of the major role events in the Middle East have played in the history of the world. For a long time, it was a meeting place of different cultures. The cradle of civilization was located between the Nile and the Euphrates. It was also the birthplace of three of the world's great religions. Our trading system is rooted in that area, not only because the great trading nations were born there but because it area is on the crossroads of trade routes linking Europe, Asia and Africa. As maritime trade developed, the waters in the area, first the Mediterranean and more recently the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, proved essential for the future development of international trade.
The area has a wealth of national resources. Water was a decisive factor, as it is in major river systems throughout the world. The Nile, the Tigris and the Euphrates fertilized the land. Today, however, another resource has become particularly important: oil. More than 50 per cent of the world's oil reserves are located here. As we have learned through experience, any interruption in the
delivery of oil from the Middle East would have an immediate and lasting impact on the world's economy.
Unfortunately, some of these aspects have made the region an area of endemic conflict. Its location, while giving birth to a whole civilization and trade, also attracted invasions and war, fire and bloodshed. Religious fanaticism lead to acts of violence and wars. In short, the area's tremendous wealth has been the object of everyone's desire. From now on, not only the reserves of oil might be at stake but also water which could become an increasingly rare commodity and therefore give rise to major conflicts in the area.
Nowadays, political and technological developments have made more complex the enduring features of that troubled region. The decolonization process was carried out more painfully than elsewhere, resulting in such problems as the fierce conflict between Israel and the neighbouring Arab countries.
Because of the superpowers' rivalry, the risk of regional conflicts turning into world wars is ever present. More recently, as a reaction against the West's culture and economic hegemony, Islam's fundamentalism introduced a new and volatile element in the policies of this region and even beyond.
Technological advancements, especially in the military field, have dramatically increased the risks of regional conflicts and greatly reduced the time the governments have to respond to critical situations. Political conflicts have now serious implications for the Southern flank of NATO-beginning with Turkey-as well as Africa, South West Asia and certain parts of the Soviet Union.
At a time when as a result of disarmament efforts the demilitarization of Europe is under way the Middle East is in the process of becoming the most heavily militarized region of the world. The outlook for the future is not at all encouraging because of the constant proliferation of mass destruction weapons and their delivery systems.
The current crisis in the Persian Gulf seems to have developed overnight, but appearances are deceiving the causes of the situation are to be found in the past. Since 1948, most of us have been inclined to focus our attention on the conflict between Israel and the Arab countries. It is essential, however, to remember that struggles between Arab countries also had a great impact on the modern history of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.

The combination of Arab nationalism and Islamic renewal represents a somewhat new phenomenon. However the issue of Arabic identity in the modem world has been a much controversal issue for quite a while in all Arab countries. It is the main reason behind most divisions between these states. The desire for Arab unity and leadership, especially with regard to Israel, weighs heavily on the political culture of that region. Nevertheless these aspirations are but an ideal constantly eroded by a great many ideological and political undercurrents.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Arab policies were marked by intense rivalries, short of outright wars, between traditional Arab monarchies and the supporters of the more radical vision of Gamel Nasser, the then President of Egypt.
The tormented history of Iraq and the current state of things should be put in perspective. At first glance, the official philosophy of Hussein's regime contains very strong Pan-Arabic elements which could provide Iraq with a leadership role in the Arab world, which at least some could expect. However, the Iraqi regime's support of these ideals characterized by extreme radicalism and violence which have isolated Iraq from the other Arab countries. Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein is still trying to establish his supremacy over the region, of which the invasion of Kuwait was but a first stage.
The Iraqi President has tried to justify his aggression in different ways. He has presented it as an act of liberation of the Kuwaiti from a monarchy, as a territorial conflict, as a holy war against the West and its Arab allies, and, finally, as a means to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth in the region as a whole. Close scrutiny of the reasons put forth reveals how false they are and shows that the actions of Saddam Hussein are nothing more than attempts on his part to impose a dictatorship in that region of the world.
The argument that Iraq was seeking to lend fraternal assistance to revolutionaries anxious to overthrow the monarchy in Kuwait proved to be pure fiction. Six days after the invasion the Iraqis demonstrated the inanity of this argument when they proclaimed their eternal and total fusion with Kuwait. This second claim stemmed
Government Orders
from a territorial conflict between both countries which they thought had been settled in the early 1960s.
Now and again, however, Iraq continued to lay claim to two small islands in the north of the Persian Gulf. Under Iraqi control, these islands would provide Baghdad with readier access to the sea. The negotiations on these two islands do show the bad faith of the Iraqi regime. They went on until as recently as July 31 when Iraq suddenly put an end to them by stating that Kuwait was not seriously considering relinquishing the territories in dispute. Irak's "response" was to invade Kuwait.
Faced with the determination of the world community against the invasion of Kuwait, the regime of Saddam Hussein tried to pass the conflict off as a holy war between Iraq and its opponents on one hand and the West and their allies on the other hand. The list of countries party to the multinational effort, including nine Arab countries and a few other Muslim states such as Bangladesh, shows that the argument is sheer sophistry-
The second Iraqi attempt to restore a dignity of sorts to this action was to say that the monarchs of the gulf kept for themselves the oil revenues which in fact belonged to all Arabs. This argument would carry more weight if it did not come from a country which was not a major oil producer and which had not received financial assistance from the gulf monarchs during the eight years of war with Iran.
None of the Iraqi arguments can stand close scrutiny. The annexion by Iraq is nothing more than an act of aggression to dominate a region, an act which nothing can justify. If the occupation of Kuwait continue, it might have further consequences.
One of these can already be felt-higher oil prices. This increase would affect not only the economies of our trade partners in the most industrialized countries. A sharp increase in oil prices would be an additional hardship for the eastern European countries which are experiencing enough difficulties as it is in their transition to a market economy. The load would become almost unbearable for the developing nations.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
This scenario has major ramifications as regards the security policy. The economic crisis resulting from a sharp increase in oil prices could seriously destabilize the political scene. This instability could jeopardize fragile new democracies in eastern Europe or cause disturbances in developing countries, in addition to the problems these nations are already faced with. Violent conflicts could then occur.
Another potential source of political instability is refugees and uprooted foreign workers, whose desperate situation is increasingly apparent. It is well known that this is a major problem in a country like Jordan. In fact, the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced a few months ago that Canada will provide assistance to the countries faced with this serious problem.
The response of the international community to the invasion of Kuwait is very encouraging. It carries the promise of better prospects for collective security as an integral part of the new global order. The potential for such cooperation on security issues is really the kind of peace dividend we were hoping to achieve with the end of the cold war.
Saddam Hussein attempted to darken these wonderful prospects by brutally invading Kuwait. The international community is determined to prevent him from succeeding. The situation in the Middle East is the fisrt test for the new global order which is emerging.
Peace logic, war logic: The hour of truth has come. Like their glorious predecessors, the Canadian servicemen and women are prepared to do their duty with courage and honour, alongside the troups from 30 or so countries advocating the rule of law, civilized standards, and a new international peace order. Canada is with them in heart and in spirit. We want them to know that we are proud of them and that we depend on them. This is the message we have for them in this grave moment for our country and for the rest of the world.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglington-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the hon. member. I would like to get back to his reference to the sequence of events in the Middle East. I will proceed in English.

Both in reference to what he said and to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated is that Canada had exercised great influence on the world community starting on August 2.1 think that the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that it was thanks to our Prime Minister that the Americans decided against the surgical strike in the Middle East. That augurs well for Canada because it suggested that we have enormous influence.
It also suggests that Canada, if it is going to act with any kind of balance and authority, has as well a credible plan in place in order to ensure that the kinds of actions that it is asking this Parliament to embark on are going to bear fruit for the international community and bring credit to Canada on behalf of long-term peace and stability, not only in the Middle East but elsewhere. These are factors that both the minister and the hon. member who just spoke have acknowledged.
The Canadian government is obliged to inform the House what the necessary steps are to ensure that we win peace, whether it comes about as a result of the government's initiative after midnight, or whether it comes about as we would propose, that is, by sanctions.
We have a right to know, and the Canadian public has a right to know. If it is going to consider seriously the motion that the government is putting before the Canadian public, what will be Canada's role in the process, both in terms of lives and in terms of resources.
For example, after midnight, will the Canadian government honestly tell the House whether it intends to use its forces in their current state and whether in fact they will continue blockading? Will it shift the commitment to provide defensive cover for front-line forces or will aircraft be used in an offensive and aggressive mode in the Middle East?
What will be done to ensure that Iraq will no longer be able, after our intervention, to take control of Kuwait again, to threaten the oilfields, or to threaten the Middle East and bring it to the brink again.
If a military intervention is what the government says is absolutely indispensable to the resolution of problems and to ensuring long-term peace after the destruction of Iraq, both in terms of its leadership, its economic capability, and its military, will the government tell us what intentions it has to maintain order, to feed the people that will be deprived of resources, and to prevent a power vacuum? How will it deal with the estimated 1.5 million refugees that will emerge from the conflict? The Canadian public needs to know the answers to these questions.

Government Orders
It also needs to have assurances that the government will not allow peace to emerge at the expense of interests of other nations in the area. I refer specifically to Israel. It should not be asked to sacrifice its national interest and security in order to arrive at an arrangement that will satisfy some members of the alliance.
It is only right that Canadians understand that the Canadian government has an over-all objective, after the conflict, after tomorrow, before we consider the motion that the government has presented to us. Will we get an answer to that from the hon. member?

Mr. Speaker, I get the impression the hon. member is not really interested in the answer, since he used all his time to ask his question. I will try to be as brief as possible.
The plans to which he referred are in fact the approach we have taken from the outset. The hon. member seems to think we have a whole set of tactics and secret plans that will come into play at the stroke of midnight or five to, which it will be very soon.
Our plan in this country has been consistent. What I can't stand is the kind of hypocrisy I am seeing here. We discussed this in September and October, in the House. A number of resolutions were adopted. Your party and the New Democratic Party opposite said that they were prepared to support this kind of resolution, provided this is done under the auspices of the United Nations. This resolution is under the auspices of the United Nations, and still they don't agree.
Canada, unlike other countries which are not so far away, has always had a profound respect and has always worked very hard for the UN. We are one of the pillars of this organization. In fact, I think we are the fourth largest country in terms of contributions. We play a major role at the UN because we believe in the UN.
There are other countries that are more skeptical. There are other countries that would rather go it alone, and their game may have been upset by the action taken by Canada and certain other powers that got on board with people who got itchy feet at the very start of the conflict, in order to prevent a conflict from breaking out in August. It is now January 15, a fateful date, and we have progressed considerably since what happened in August, and we are getting there.
I still think that if we manage to get together and take up a strong position-not an armed position, but a strong position-we can make this dictator listen to reason.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of statements from President Bush, Secretary of State Baker, and the CIA Director Webster made in the early fall indicating the gravity of the impact of sanctions on Iraq. They talked about oil exports having been halted and virtually nothing getting in or out of the country.
I have more recently similar statements from Senate Majority Leader Mitchell and Senator Edward Kennedy. Debates were held last week in Congress.
Will the member opposite admit that sanctions could achieve the retreat of Iraq from Kuwait?

From what he knows and has heard, does he think it would have been possible to get Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait with sanctions alone?
Mr. Speaker, that would have been ideal, but I don't think it will get that far.
Currently, President Saddam Hussein has become an expert at letting the civilian population bear the brunt of the sanctions. The army is not affected by rationing and continues to get its arms and military equipment, while the civilian population suffers. This could go on for ages. I do not think sanctions alone would be enough to bring a government to its knees. However, sanctions were useful in sending a clear message to this president who was not open to any other kind of message.

Government Orders


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today with a deep sense of humility and great pride. The humility is in the wake of those great Canadian orators and architects of our history who have stood here and shaped the course of Canadian history by the very debates and the decisions that they have made on issues such as this, on occasions when the debates have taken on the same amount of emotion, the same amount of dignity, and indeed the same amount of passion.
I stand here with pride which is in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty as we know it in Canada in its purest form yet devised. Here in the House of Commons, in Parliament, is centred the hopes and aspirations and the faith of the entire Canadian people. I know they are watching tonight, and I know they are trying to place semblance of order and sense in what is being debated.
I want to add also that I do not preach as an advocate for any partisan cause, because I believe the issues are fundamental and reach beyond the realm of partisan consideration on this side and on the other side of the House.
They must be resolved on the highest plain of national interest-and I stress "national interest"-if our course is to prove sound and our future is to be protected.
I trust that you, Mr. Speaker, and those watching and listening to this debate will do me the justice of receiving what I have to say as solely expressing the considered viewpoint of a concerned Canadian. Therefore, I address the House with one purpose in mind: to serve the best interest of our country.
For any civilized society to commence full scale war- that is what we are talking about here-surely requires that every viable alternative be exhausted first. Given the horror of destruction, disorder, and death that war necessarily entails by its definition, it must be the final resort.
I am not suggesting that the use of force should be ruled out. In fact, in the final analysis there are compelling circumstances that may demand a final, bloody solution to this crisis. But have those circumstances presented themselves yet? That is what this debate is all about. The issue is judgmental.
Although I was impressed by the speeches of the Prime Minister, my leader, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on this issue, I have heard very little evidence that would convince me that the course of action that we take and decide today is clear and based on firm evidence that could be refuted in this, the highest court in the land.
The issue is what is in Canada's best national interest. There were a number of things in this debate that were in our interest. To begin with-I am not going to recite the history-it was in Canada's interest that the United Nations condemned the Iraqi assault on Kuwait. We in the House supported it.
It was in Canada's national interest to have multinational forces in the Persian Gulf. That received our support. It was in Canada's national interest to have economic sanctions against Iraq in a hope of convincing them to get out of Kuwait. We supported that.
It was in Canada's national interest to have the Canadian forces involved in the Persian Gulf to enforce these UN resolutions and that also received support from the House.
Now that Hussein, the master of brinksmanship, in the light of all this action does not blink, we want to resort to force. Is that in Canada's national interest?
No matter how I look at this issue and no matter how my emotions take me, whether it be to use force or to continue sanctions, because that seems to be the Y that we are at right now, I always have to bring myself back to the same question: What is in Canada's national interest?
To my mind, the debate on economic sanctions has not been satisfactorily resolved. I have evidence, suggestions, and ideas like others on what the embargoes can do. My latest information-you can draw your own judgment-is that the Bstockpiles in Iraq as of the end of September would last anywhere from four months to ten months.

Iraq had a bumper wheat crop this year and it is generally supportive in fruit and vegetables. The evidence that I have is that its economy is being crippled. How long can it supply a favoured element of the society, which in this case is obviously the military and its forces, at the expense of others? I do not believe it can continue to have 97 per cent of its exports cut off. I believe Iraq has a single commodity export largely. Its oil is not getting out, and 95 per cent of its imports are cut off. How can anybody say that it will not have an effect? That is a contradiction of terms.
The point is that it is judgmental. We are now using an argument that for the reasons that economic sanctions will not work in the judgment of the government, it has agreed essentially that Canada should join those other countries that believe they should resort to force.
I am not against the use of force. I have been trained for a life time in the use of force. It has been kind of a corkscrew feeling, if you like, where you train yourself to be the best at doing something you hope you never have to do, and that is true. I mean that. I would suggest that for those who are trained in the use of force and who understand the use of force, the more you understand it, the less you are disposed to use it. We are looking at here the unleashing of forces that will cause the world never to be the same. There may be a time when we have to do it but it has to be the last resort. Is this the last resort? I do not believe it is.
If we have to make a choice, let us weigh the positives and the negatives of each course of action. That is the way I have approached this. What if we go to war? This is not meant as a shock tactic. We have heard about a number of things. We have heard of the missile inventory that the Iraqis have, that they will be able to attack Tbrkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, where incidentally Canadian forces are stationed. Saddam Hussein has said that he will attack Israel, and Tel Aviv particularly. I do not have to call upon the imagination of the House to envisage what that will drum up.
It is well known that Hussein has in his inventory a frightful array of weapons, a lot of which have been used in previous wars. But it has been some time since the allied forces have witnessed the use of chemical weap-
Govemment Orders
ons. It is my belief that chemical weapons more than likely will be used in this upcoming campaign.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, just on the chemical weapon side alone about the kind of thing that Iraq has and will use. It has mustard gas which causes burning eyes, blistering of skin, coughing, and bleeding of the nose. Death occurs within about one hour to 30 years, depending on the exposure. I am told by the medical people that death in one hour is preferable to a death in 30 years.
They have a blistering agent. The symptoms are very persistent, producing incapacitating blisters. This was developed from the mustard gas. Death occurs almost instantly if the vapours are inhaled.
Nerve gases produce these symptoms: malfunctioning of the nervous system, twitching, incapacitation. Death occurs rapidly, depending on the exposure. Nerve agents can be countered with antidotes and we have heard some discussion of some recent antidotes. This is one indication of what can happen once we make the decision to go for force.
The Prime Minister in his presentation said something that bothered me and perhaps subsequent speakers can speak to this. He raised the question of how time to allow the sanctions to work would have a cost. I agree with him. Nothing in this world is free. Every course of action we take will have a cost. They have to be measured. The alternative cost of war has to be measured against the cost of war.
The Prime Minister talked about the economic costs. He talked about other costs but the one cost that he talked about that concerned me was the cost of bringing Iraq closer to the possibility of having a nuclear device.
I am concerned about that. There is certainly evidence that Iraq has tried to convert the core of what it has now into an explosive device. In fact it purchased uranium from France in 1975. While it came up with some agreements, there is some question as to whether or not these agreements have been followed.
My best estimate from the judgment of those who know, and those whom I can contact is that at this point in time there is not an imminent threat from Iraq. Nor do they necessarily believe that it will happen in the immediate future. While they do not dismiss the wisdom of a continuing embargo, they do believe that whether or not it is in the timeframe is questionable.

Government Orders
I would submit to you that if we continue with embargoes and if they are as effective as they have been, and continue to be, then the possibility of a nuclear device will be hopefully no closer in six months, eight months, or four months, than it is right now.
What I am saying really is that before we resort to the use of force, we must measure the effect of going to war is going to have on this world, the Persian Gulf and this country. There are all kinds of reservations I have about the very business of going to war. I have a lot of questions. I asked one of the Minister of National Defence today.
My first question, is Canada ready for a war? My hon. colleague from LaSalle-Emard asked the question about the preparedness for war in the sense of civil and domestic aspects. I listened to the answer. I am not sure that I am convinced that we are ready.
I do not have evidence, despite the question I asked of the hon. Minister of National Defence in Question Period today, and despite some private notes that we sent back and forth, precisely what is going to happen to Canada's force in the Middle East, in the Persian Gulf, if offensive action breaks out. Who is going to control our force? There is no United Nations structure. There is no United Nations force commander, as there was in the case of Korea.
As you probably know, Mr. Speaker, General McArthur was the first United Nations force commander. Who is in charge of this operation? This House has not been told who is going to run the operation. These are reasonable questions. I am not being partisan. We deserve to know the answer. If the answer is unclear, perhaps we should not be rushing into the kind of conflict that we are getting involved in.
There are many other aspects of this. There is the aspect of what effect does moving into a war now have while options are still available for peace? What effect will this have on the economy of the world? I hear talks about oil at an outrageous price. Nobody knows for sure, but the figures are astounding. They are talking about $50 to $90 for a barrel of petroleum in the near future. What it means to us in the streets who buy gas is anywhere from 70 cents to $1 a litre in a short timeframe. That is not the driving force, but it is a consideration.
So the question I am asking myself, and the question I am asking the decision-makers is: Have we sat down and thought out all these implications and the implications of the wins, or the gains, and the losses, or the cost, by the course of action that we take. When I do that analysis with the information that I have, my judgment is that we should wait.
I am told by military colleagues and by people who are in the business that there is a window for attack. The closest window I guess is 45 days, and the far window is next fall. I am not in a position to make the judgment on how that window should be used because I do not have the information. The Minister of National Defence, the Minister of External Affairs, and the Prime Minister have at their disposal the intelligence information-to the military expertise that they get from the Departments of National Defence, External Affairs, and others-on which they can base these decisions.
Unless they have information that we do not have on this side of the House and unless they have information from the United Nations other than the unclassified information we have, I am not sure why the decision is being made the way it is being made. There are other alternatives available.
I said that I was here feeling somewhat humble and with a great pride at being able to do what I am doing, to get up and speak in the House on this. I also have great pride in the Canadian forces. They have sacrificed their way of life to be away from their families, especially at Christmas time with the future looking bleak and uncertain and with the thought of war. The unpredictable nature of what is going to happen in their lives is so much more close and so much more constant and a part of their very being and indeed their families than perhaps others who do not face this on a 100 per cent basis do.
I ask myself another question. It has been asked in the congressional debates in the United States that if there were congressmen and senators who had sons and daughters serving in the military, would the vote have been the same. I cannot answer that question. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker. To those who are voting and making the decisions, I say: Ask yourself one question: Would you make the same decision if you had an immediate relative whose life would be put on the line when you believed in your heart of hearts that there was

another alternative available and when there was another course of action that could be followed?
I support the United Nations. I do not believe there is a person in this House who does not support the United Nations. The reputation that Canada has had where we can accomplish peace without the resort to war would perhaps be an even better testament to what it is we do here in this House.
I am going to close by saying that during this debate we will discuss all kinds of matters, but we will essentially categorize them in time, as they did in congressional hearings. We will quote many people, from Winston Churchill to Theodore Roosevelt, and you name it. We will be talking about the histories of the past with the passions of today, but I believe we should do it with the concern for the possible tears for tomorrow.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception on his excellent speech. It differs from speeches made earlier by some of his colleagues.
In the course of his speech he said at least three times that he was not against the use of force. I realize he is a retired rear admiral. He was a member of the Armed Forces at a level very few people reach. Since his rank was the equivalent of a general in the army, if I am not mistaken. He is therefore well aware of the capabilities of the Canadian forces.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I was amazed that in his speech he seemed to doubt the ability of our Canadian officers to command our troops in the gulf. I found that somewhat surprising because I went to the gulf, during the week of November 11. I had conversations with army regulars, but I also talked to senior officers. I saw the kind of equipment they had, the quality of their training and their motivation. At no time was there any doubt in my mind about the ability of these officers to command our soldiers down there, or about the ability of the men and women we have in the gulf to fulfil their mission. I would appreciate it if he would clarify that part of his speech.
Government Orders
Furthermore, when he says that we have not explored all avenues, I wish he would tell me what avenues Canada has failed to explore so far.
Third, Canada which was instrumental in involving the Americans and the Soviets in recognizing the power of the UN as a common force. For the first time in the history of this organization, in the history of our planet, did he mean that 32 or rather 34 countries, if I am not mistaken, which are involved in the gulf, were all making the same mistake? Are the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party the only ones with a clear view of what should be done, of what the UN should be doing in the gulf?


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his point of clarification and his follow-on question. I am delighted to respond to it.
I would like to say at the outset that I am disappointed and almost upset that the hon. member, with whom I have worked very closely for the last two years on the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs would circumscribe the comments to portray what he thought they meant. I also want to say at the outset that there is nothing further from anything I wanted to suggest or anything that I said, I believe. I have the greatest faith in and pride in the Canadian forces.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not alone when I say that our young men and women, our officers and our leadership are if not the best in the world, among the best in the world. We have demonstrated that time and time again in NATO operations. Our air force comes out on top. Our maritime command quite frequently wins the trophy for anti-submarine warfare. Our ships in NATO exercises almost always come out on top. Our land forces are well known for their professionalism in NATO exercises.
I am under absolutely no reservation. There is not one element of reservation in my blood that would give me any cause for reservation of leadership and the ability to command within the Canadian forces. That is not the point.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
The point is this: When you have an array of 675,000 ground troops in the Persian Gulf area, 13,000 combat vehicles, 4,500 tanks, 150 warships, and 1,600 combat aircraft from close to 30 nations, from one end of the gulf to the other, you have a different proposition when you go to war than you have right now in peacetime. We are exercising Canadian command and Canadian control over a designated force of three ships, 1,860 men and women, and 24 aircraft operating in a designated sector and carrying out predictable, designated tasks. Once you go to war with this great array of forces-and if you consider two sides you are looking at well over one million people, to say nothing of the highly technical force-the co-ordination effort becomes extraordinarily difficult. But there is one principle involved: there has to be somebody in charge. I am told-and I do not mean to be facetious-it is not conceivable at this point in time that a Canadian commander will be in charge of the gulf operation if we go to war with Iraq, not because we do not have the people who have the capability, intelligence or experience, but because it simply ain't going to work that way.
I have a question to which I want an answer from the Minister of National Defence. I have no doubt our troops will be commanded by Canadians. We have great leadership ability, and that is the way is has to be and that is the way it always has been. But I remind hon. members of Dieppe and other areas where Canadian troops commanded by Canadians were controlled by other forces and were led into disaster. That is my concern.
This House deserves to know the mechanics of what is involved in the operation of the Canadian forces however this vote goes when we take it. I want to know as a member of the House of Commons, as a Canadian, as a defence critic or in any capacity in which I stand here, the answers to those questions. Those are the questions to which the men and women in the Persian Gulf and Canadians want to know the answer. Until we get the answer to that question, I will not be satisfied. If the member needs any more clarification than that, I will get up and speak again.
On the second point, I think it is a fair question, but again I presume it is not a planted question because I do not believe the member opposite really wants to be overly partisan about it. But, Mr. Speaker, have a look at the United Nations resolutions. I have them all here. I will not go through them. I do not have time to do that. But this has been a model United Nations operation. We started off the sequence properly. We went through the resolutions identifying aggression, calling for compliance with non-military sanctions and compliance with military sanctions. No matter how we read the United Nations charter or no matter how we interpret it, does it say, that when all these measures fail will we then resort to the use of force?
There is something somewhere in the United Nations charter that I remember reading as a youngster which says that the purpose of the United Nations was to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, and here we are now taking that charter and tipping it upside down.
The hon. member referred to 35 countries that agreed with those sanctions. There is no evidence that those 35 countries will follow the United States into action. I have no evidence. I have asked the question. The Leader of the Opposition asked that question today. How many members of the force now in the Persian Gulf will follow the United States into this action? Will Russia be there? Will France be there? Will Japan be there? What happens if Israel is attacked? Egypt has already said that it may not follow. I worry about that.
I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I do not accept the premise the hon. member gives me that all those who are now involved in the peacetime operation will follow the United States on a path to war like we seem to be doing right now.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions and I believe Your Honour will find consent for the following motion:

That this House authorize the broadcasting, pursuant to the principles and practices governing the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons, by the electronic media as represented through the House of Commons press gallery, of the meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, Thursday, January 17 at 3.30 p.m.; and that such broadcasting be at the discretion of the chairman of the committee and that the decorum of the meeting be preserved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) (p. 16984) and of the amendment of Mr. Chretien (p. 16995).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. I will now recognize the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance).


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the subject before the House today is one that is extremely important, not only for the Middle East but for Canada and the whole world. Today there has been general recognition of the fact that the stakes are far too high and the potential consequences far too tragic for this debate to be coloured by political partisanship.
Although widely divergent views and philosophical principles are being expressed in this debate, which is perfectly normal, I hope we all agree on one thing, and that is that no one in this House is in favour of war. On opposition and government benches we find only peace-mongers. What unites us as Canadians is our love of peace and order. In fact, peace and order are the cornerstones of our Constitution and our society.
Government Orders
To be a Canadian is to support peace and order. It is one of the glories of our history. It has been our goal within the family of nations and it continues to motivate our international initiatives. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a situation that may have tragic repercussions on a world scale.
Consider the facts. Iraq, a local, aggressive military power decides to invade its neighbour, Kuwait, a small country which, despite its rich oil reserves, is unable to defend itself. The events on August 2 were another unfortunate example of the law of the jungle.
According to numerous accounts by refugees and information from agencies such as Amnesty International, the Iraqi forces were not content to occupy their neighbour's territory. They have subjected it to the worst horrors of war: plunder, theft and rape. As we speak, those unfortunate men, women and children who were unable to leave Kuwait live under a reign of terror at the mercy of the Iraqi forces. We must not forget that it was Iraq that opted for war and aggression.


An hon. member:: That's true!


Gilles Loiselle: Faced with these acts of violence, the international community cannot be satisfied with declarations made at the United Nations or elsewhere, no matter how strong they might be. We have to go beyond mere economic sanctions if they only make life more miserable for the Iraqis without changing the bad faith of the regime in Baghdad or putting an end to the occupation of Kuwait.
The impact of actions taken by the Iraqi government reaches far beyond the frontiers of Iraq and those of the Middle East. What are the countries most likely to be the victims of such violence? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the weakest, the most destitute, and the most vulnerable in the world.
Soon enough, the situation in the Persian Gulf will have a destabilizing effect on the world economy, and especially on the economic well-being of Third World nations. More than ever they will have difficulties to find the funds required to build schools, develop their agricultural sector, improve their health care system, and upgrade their economic infrastructure.
In addition, an unstable world economy will make it even more difficult for these countries to lighten the weight of their international debt.

Government Orders
If we do not find a way to push back the Iraqi troops and restore Kuwait's territorial integrity, through diplomacy or otherwise, the weakest and most vulnerable countries stand to lose the most. Why? Because the international order and the collective security system exist precisely to protect the weakest, not the strongest. If we let Iraq annex Kuwait, who will prevent other aggressive powers which have territorial ambitions from following in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein?
Some people think that Canada should not get involved in the Persian Gulf issue. They disapproved of the role we played in this case within the Security Council of the United Nations. They voiced their opposition to our endorsement of the UN resolutions against Iraq. They were against sending armed forces to implement unanimous UN resolutions.
I do not question their sincerity or their goodwill, Mr. Speaker, but how can these people remain indifferent to the invasion and occupation of Kuwait? How can they stand the numerous instances of human rights abuse by Iraqi forces in Kuwait? Are they aware of the possible impact on the most vulnerable countries of the world if we do not make every attempt to enforce the international order?
In such a critical moment of the world history, we should not delude ourselves. Without the means or the will to enforce the international order, there will be no international order. The law of the strongest will prevail and, sadly, the Third World countries will be the first affected.
Canada has never buried its head in the sand in its international relations before and we have no intention of starting now.
Since the end of the Second World War, we have always been proud of our record and actions among the family of nations. Our governments, from whatever party, all gave themselves the mandate to put into place international structures in order to promote peace, order and international development. This government is no exception.
Canada put international interdependence to good use and always honoured its obligations at the international level. It is a matter of development. It is a matter of human rights. It is a matter of international trade. It is also a matter of peace versus war.
As full-fledged members of the international community, we cannot pretend that the gulf situation does not affect us. It does not concern only other countries. It concerns us as well.
Why has Canada become directly involved in the gulf crisis? The reasons are many and complex.
First, there is the matter of collective security that I mentioned. The invasion of Kuwait disrupted an already unstable area which is vital for our interests and the health of the global economy.
Unless the international community responds efficiently and fairly through the UN to restore the territorial integrity of Kuwait and the international order in that region, the very concept of collective security will be no more than an illusion with no bearing on reality. For the smallest countries of the world, the weakest and the most destitute, it would be a terrible and frightening future.
And so it is that countries like ours which play a leading role in international relations and which have the means to intervene, ought to assume their full responsibilities and do their share to restore peace and order.
Most important, our lofty notions and declarations must lead to concrete action, otherwise our collective security is little more than rhetoric and fiction.
Second, Mr. Speaker, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq threatens the economic stability of the world as well as the economic and social well-being of a good many nations the world over.
Let us not forget that 40 per cent of the world's oil reserves are at stake. In addition, a sharp rise in oil prices would have a disastrous impact on inflation, economic growth, unemployment, international trade-in short, on-the world's economic stability and health. It stands to reason that Canada is not immune to the vagaries of the world economy.
As a matter of fact it has often been said that among industrialized nations Canada is probably the most dependent on international trade. Our standard of living, our jobs, and our health and welfare system are directly linked to our export performance. If our export markets decrease and if the world economy falters, thousands of our fellow Canadians will feel the direct and brutal impact.

Yet, what I have just described is only one aspect of the economic consequences of the gulf crisis. Not unlike in the case of collective security considerations, the weakest economies stand to lose the most in this crisis. Third World countries will be hard hit. As I pointed out earlier, because of the economic instability engendered by the crisis, these countries will experience ever more difficulties to escape from indebtedness, poverty, illness, and inadequate and underdeveloped infrastructures.
What about the countries of central and eastern Europe that have just been freed from the futile yoke of the Communist regime? They need us. They need our assistance and our support. A good many of these people are net importers of oil to heat their homes and to keep their industrial machinery going.
There is undoubtedly another and more important reason to take action, and it is our moral conscience. The ruthless invasion by a military and aggressive power of a weak and defenseless neighbour is inexcusable, unjustifiable, immoral and reprehensible. How could we remain passive and unconcerned in the presence of the systematic use of murder, theft, rape and plundering? We could not.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we must stand up and be counted. That is exactly what the government did following the invasion of Kuwait. That is why the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State External Affairs worked so hard to ensure that the international community's response would be through the UN. That is why we have supported the UN's resolutions against Iraq. That is also the reason we joined the international forces in the Persian Gulf area. We have supported all negotiations and diplomatic initiatives in an effort to find a peaceful solution to this crisis. As a matter of fact, as the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State indicated today, we continue to support them.
For the past five months, the international community has offered the Iraqi government various peaceful ways out, each time to no avail. The Iraqi government seems to believe that the coalition is fragile and that our determination is weak.
The Iraqi government is wrong. It is unfortunate, if not outright tragic, that such a government be blinded by cynical and grandiose ambitions. Needless to say, it is not
Government Orders
the first time in the history of the world that such plans have been so grossly miscalculated.
We want our allies, the weaker and more vulnerable countries of the world, and Iraq to know that Canada will not shy away from its international commitments. When the time comes to re-establish international peace and order, to ensure collective security and the well-being of the weakest and neediest, the international community can always count on Canada.
That is why I ask all my hon. colleagues, from both sides of the House, to go beyond party considerations and support the effort of our great country within the international coalition. The purpose is not only to help the Kuwaiti government and people, but to safeguard the international order, the only guarantee for the well-being and security of the weakest and most vulnerable countries in the world.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the minister on his speech, and then I would like to take this opportunity to ask two questions.
My first question is this: Is his government in favour of a peace conference on current problems in the Middle East? Second, if Canada gets involved in this war, does the government intend to cut services and programs here in Canada or does it intend to raise taxes to finance our contribution?


Gilles Loiselle: I want to thank the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur for his questions.
With regard the international conference, I believe Canada has already indicated during the past months and years that there is a series of problems in the Middle East that should be dealt with. I believe that our country's position in this respect is quite clear.
It would, however, be highly inappropriate to establish a direct link between such a conference and our response to Saddam Hussein. We would be telling Saddam Hussein: "Dear Mr. President of Iraq. Since you leave us no other alternative and since you have invaded this country and destroyed its population and tried to erase every trace of most of its citizens, thus eliminating a member State of the United Nations, as a reward, and to show that we understand your message, we are going to

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
change our attitude and call a series of conferences, as if the problems were elsewhere and not in Kuwait".
The crux of the problem is Kuwait. The country was invaded, and the president of Kuwait must withdraw. There are still a few hours left before the deadline set by the United Nations. After a series of resolutions, I hope that the last-ditch efforts that are being made, with our support, will make the president of Iraq review his position.
As for the cost of maintaining our presence in the gulf, I would say that at the present time, and I had a chance when the Estimates were tabled some time ago, to inform the House that our presence until March had been more or less financed by budgets within the Department of National Defence. There was a potential loss which had not been foreseen, since the crisis was unexpected, of abut $350 million, and at the time I explained how this money would be recovered. For the time being, those are the documents that contain the answer to the hon. member's question.
As for the future, I still hope we will quickly get a peaceful solution in this area. The world needs it, because in any case war is a poor solution. However, it may be the only one when one is dealing with people who make this kind of solution necessary. So I hope we will avoid this war as I said in my speech, and thus avoid the cost that will have an impact in various ways on all Canadians.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the translation of the hon. member's remarks during the course of his speech-and I apologize for my total lack of facility in French but if the hon. member will bear with me-he said, as translated, that Canada has been up to now passive and detached. He observed that the time was coming when we must intervene. The words "passive and detached" and "intervene" are direct quotes.
This seems to me to crystallize to some degree what has impressed me as a misunderstanding in the House to date in some quarters. Somehow there is the assumption that what is being carried out by Canada-and-other nations in the gulf at the moment is not the use of force.
It should be made very clear that Canada and the other nations active in the gulf at the moment are most definitely engaged in the use of force. What we have not yet resorted to is the use of murder, and what we are debating in the House today is whether or not Canada ought to participate in the use of murder. But let there be no mistake. To date, we have been engaged in the use of force.
The use of force to date in the opinion of many, including former directors of the CIA of the United States, has been effective in crippling Iraqi industrial capacity. In other words, the embargo has been effective, is being effective, and, in fact, is taking increasing effect within Iraq.
It seems to me that the hon. member must be able to say that sanctions are failing if, in humanity, he thereby proposes to proceed to say: "Thus, war is necessary."
I have a simple question. What evidence, if any, does the member have that he can present in the House that sanctions are failing?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, there is very simple evidence. For sanctions to function they would have to have an effect on Saddam Hussein and I would like the hon. gentleman to indicate to me any small indication that he would be prepared to move. The rest is, in many ways, irrelevant.
We also know that a lot of material is coming into Iraq through Iran. We know that sanctions were used in other countries, one being Rhodesia for a period of 10 years without giving much effect. At the time, the United Nations was weakened because of the cold war. This is something that has to be understood.
For the first time, we can give this international organization a chance to play the role it was built to play, now that it is not crippled any longer by the capacity of the veto by one or the other of the members. An international organization is now in a position to deal with such a problem. That is why the United Nations, through the Security Council, asked the members to adopt a resolution, after the one on the embargo, after coming to the conclusion that some other action was required. Why did it do it? Because it felt that it was not getting anywhere.

Here we are faced with the invasion of a small country by a big one. The world community unanimously is asking for action and we are saying: "Later." I tell the hon. gentleman that later will not change anything. We will still be faced with the same problem. If the sanctions were working, they would have an impact on Saddam Hussein. The working of the sanctions is where the proof lies, not in the fact that there are fewer fruits in the market, but the fact that the government of Iraq is taking notice. I have not seen anything to that effect.
When one sees the Secretary General of the United Nations being asked to wait for practically an hour to be treated with disdain, the representative of the world community, this is not an indication that one is dealing with somebody who wants to be reasonable. We know that if one is against crime, one should be against the crimes that have been committed over the last five months in that country. Do not forget them. This is why we cannot say to these people who are asking for help: "Just wait, we will make a few more speeches. Wait for a few more months." The crime has been committed. Five months have gone by and the time for action is getting closer. I hope we can avoid it, but I have my doubts.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this debate on what, as my leader has indicated, is literally a question of life and death. This is very likely the most important debate that all of us who have the honour of serving as members of the House and elected representatives of the people of Canada will ever participate in.

I must emphasize the fact that no member of this House has debated the fundamental issue facing us now, whether or not Canada should take part in a war. The last time Canadian parliamentarians discussed this issue was in 1950, and it had to do with the Korean war.

That makes all the more grave our responsibility as members of the House to examine the evidence and to look with care at the arguments that are made with respect to the proposal of the government that would have the effect of plunging this nation into a catastrophic war.
Government Orders
It also makes more important the reality that on a question this fundamental which goes to the very soul of this nation, and indeed to each of us as elected members, that we should be free to vote with our conscience and listen to the arguments that are made, and, as my leader pointed has pointed out, to vote in a free vote on this fundamental question.
The issue in this debate is not whether we condemn as a country, as a Parliament, and as Canadian people, the invasion on August 2 by Iraq of Kuwait. Of course, we condemn that. The community of nations has condemned that. With one voice we join in that condemnation.
I have met personally with men and women who have been in Kuwait and who have seen the devastating impact of that invasion. I met with those who are hostages held in Kuwait and with Kuwaitis themselves. There is a very significant Palestinian community in Kuwait. I have spoken with our very courageous staff from the Canadian embassy in Kuwait. There are people such as Bill Bowden and the men and women who displayed enormous courage, as did the Canadian hostages, in assisting those who were held there.
I and my colleagues have read the report of Amnesty International documenting the horrors of this invasion and annexation. That is not the issue.
The issue is how we as a community of nations, in this first challenge since the end of the cold war, respond to that aggression.
Others have talked about previous wars. They have talked about the period leading up to World War II and the destruction of life and the enormous devastation in World War II. There was the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some have argued and, indeed, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has argued, that in some way the lesson we should draw from World War II is that we should plunge ourselves into another war. Surely the lesson is precisely the opposite. In the time leading up to World War II, the community of nations did not in fact use alternatives to war. Quite the contrary, as my colleague from Trinity-Spadina who is a veteran of that war has pointed out. The community of nations engaged actively in commerce with Germany. Indeed, many of the countries that ultimately went to war were those whose companies were supplying the Germans with weapons.

Government Orders
The lesson we draw from that is, surely, that where there is an alternative of tough economic sanctions and of diplomacy, that in fact is the alternative that we should be supporting.
This is in fact the first test.

This is the first time since the end of the cold war in the world. How are we going to respond to the aggression of one country against another?

I would argue that it is madness for us in this first test collectively of the world's response to resort to a weapon, war, which has been demonstrated to be catastrophic. Is this really the best that we can do? Surely, we must look at the alternatives.
There was hope early on in this process. The United Nations was in fact working effectively. On the day following the invasion, a resolution was adopted overwhelmingly, unanimously, condemning the invasion. We had real hope that with the end of the cold war that the United Nations might in fact be an effective tool for international diplomacy. That hope will be tragically betrayed if this country and other members of the coalition plunge into a war.
It is interesting that the minister had talked about the fact that if we wait it may be difficult to hold the coalition together. As Admiral Crow, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, has said, it is hard to understand why some consider our international alliance strong enough to conduct intense hostilities but too fragile to hold together while we attempt a peaceful solution. And, Mr. Speaker, he is right. He is right.
There is an alternative and my leader and my colleagues in the course of this debate have spelled out, and will spell out, that alternative. That alternative is collective firm action through sanctions and diplomatic action. The minister has said that we do not know if sanctions are working and that we do not know if sanctions will work.
I know that my colleagues are going to be elaborating on this point so I am not going to go on at any length, but I want to draw to the attention of the House a couple of
statements that have been made on this subject by people who are in a position to know.
The Director of the CIA, William Webster, in his evidence to Congress stated: "The Baghdad regime is inexorably running out of the commodity on which its future depends, money. Oil revenues are the drip-feed of Baghdad's life support system. Without them the dictatorship will inevitably perish."
If that alternative is available, why plunge us into a war? Why plunge the world into a war whose consequences we know? We do not have to speculate on what they might be. We have been told and I will come to that in a few minutes.
We have heard from many others. We have heard once again from retired Admiral Crow who said that "if in fact the sanctions will work in 12 to 18 months instead of six months, the trade-off of avoiding war with its attendant sacrifices and uncertainties would, in my view, be worth it".
As New Democrats, we say that in our view it is worth it as well and we must avoid the madness of war.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I could quote others at some length. [Translation]
The House is aware that there was a very important and excellent debate in the American Congress. There was a very close vote in the Senate, the other house, and many senators and members of the House of Representatives who took the floor spoke of the significant impact of the sanctions, an issue which my colleagues will deal with later on.
We have to ask ourselves: What is the role that Canada has played in this conflict? More important, in looking to the future, what is the role that Canada even at this late date should be playing in resolving this conflict in a peaceful manner?
I would argue that each step of the way, rather than Canada playing a role within the context of the United Nations, seeking to speak with an independent voice, that we have been driven by a policy which George Bush has dictated to the Prime Minister of this country.
January 15, 1991

The evidence of that is very clear from the beginning. In fact our initial military response came immediately following a meeting between the Prime Minister and George Bush and before the United Nations had authorized the use of force to implement sanctions. It was to implement sanctions. We supported that decision of the United Nations, but it is important to underline the fact that our Conservative government responded not to the United Nations, but to George Bush. That is a betrayal of the independent tradition of this country of peacemaking.
I think we have to ask ourselves very clearly as well what was the effect of the actions led by the United States and the Security Council. We have to remember that later our Secretary of State for External Affairs and, indeed, the Prime Minister made it very clear that they really did not care whether the United Nations in fact was prepared to go to war if sanctions broke down or beforehand, as we are seeing now.
No, our Secretary of State for External Affairs said: "The United Nations might not work. There might be a veto. China might say no. If there is a veto, we in Canada are prepared to discard the United Nations and we are prepared to take unilateral action." I do not accept the fact that this government is now wrapping itself in the flag of the United Nations because it happens to be convenient for them to do so as it is for the United States.
This raises very grave questions about the future role of the United Nations. Rather, our actions have been from the beginning driven by a desire to do what George Bush has told this country to do.
I mentioned China. I want to say just briefly that, again, as a community of nations we have to ask ourselves what price has been paid to cobble together this coalition that authorized resolution 678, which was such a dangerous and open-ended resolution and does not talk about United Nations command. In fact it flies in the face of the fundamental principles of the Charter of Rights itself. How quickly is the United States forgetting those horrifying events in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989 in its attempt to build this coalition with China.
I could look at other nations and ask the same question. Others will do that, I am sure.
Government Orders
A question again that we as elected representatives of the people must ask ourselves surely is: What would this war be all about? What would be the objective of going to war at this point? Would it be to restore democracy to Kuwait, to Saudi Arabia, and other countries in the region? No, of course not. Kuwait is far from a democracy.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs said last night, it is a semi-feudal society. We are not talking here about restoring democracy to countries which are sorely in need of democracy and respect for human rights.
Are we talking about the United States demonstrating respect for international law and being opposed to aggression? I do not think they have to look very far at the history of the United States in the world community to recognize that it has, far too frequently, displayed total contempt for international law, whether it be in East Timor with a genocide of over 200,000 people when Indonesia invaded, whether it be its active support for its murderous regimes in Chile or in El Salvador today, pumping in over $1 million a day, or whether it be its silence in the face of other invasions and the question of Tibet and Cyprus, and its involvement, as my colleague from Vancouver East has said, in Grenada and Panama. I think it is pretty clear that the United States has a rather selective view and a selective respect for international law which is demonstrated very well in its contempt for resolutions dealing with the occupied territories.
I want to note as well, and I think it is important in examining the history of this conflict, to note the position that the United States took, not in another country in another jurisdiction, but with Iraq one week before Iraq invaded Kuwait. There was a meeting between Saddam Hussein and the United States ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie on July 25, one week before Iraq invaded Kuwait. We have a transcript of the meeting that took place between the United States ambassador and Saddam Hussein. This is what the United States ambassador said to Saddam Hussein during the course of that conversation one week before the invasion.
In talking about the effects of the price of oil dropping, she said:
I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country.
Then the ambassador of the United States said this:

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
I was in the American embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesman to emphasize this instruction.
That was the signal that the Government of the United States of America was sending out one week before this invasion. The day before the invasion, the American administration said no to Congress in its request for economic sanctions against Iraq. We have to ask ourselves, what would this destructive war really be all about? It would not be to support the United Nations because there are alternatives to war. Rather, in a moment of candour, the President of the United States said this would be a war to preserve the American way of life, the consumption of oil. Well, we in the New Democratic Party believe that it would be profoundly wrong for Canada to participate in a war to support the American way of life and not to give sanctions time to work.
I want to point out as well that during the course of the debate in the American Congress, there was a very narrow mandate given, particularly in the Senate of the United States. A vote of 53 to 47,1 believe. In this House I would argue that even if there is a vote to support Canada's involvement in military action, it is not good enough to send Canadian men and women into combat after a very narrow vote in a deeply divided House. To send men and women into combat in those circumstances was wrong in the United States and it would be wrong in Canada as well. It is particularly wrong and destructive when there is an alternative, particularly as my leader has pointed out.
I want to take this opportunity on behalf, not of just my colleagues in the House, but of all Canadians, to pay tribute to the role that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has played in attempting to find a peaceful solution to this conflict by going to Washington to meet with democratic leaders and in travelling across this land. I think all Canadians want to express their appreciation and respect for the leadership that she has shown in the search for peace.
I want to talk briefly about the alternatives that we have put forward and in particular that my leader has put
forward, and then to make a couple of other points. I know that my time is running out. I believe there is some understanding with respect to an extension of that time and I will try to be brief.
The leader of my party and all New Democrats in the caucus have put forward an important alternative to Canada's participation in war. That alternative involves the continued use and indeed the tightening of economic sanctions, sanctions which are already costing Saddam Hussein over $2 billion a month. I say to anyone who suggests that somehow he is getting off scot-free, and that he is not paying a price, the price that is being paid by Iraq for its aggression, is devastating to the Iraqi economy. Let us continue that. Let us strengthen that.
But let us not plunge the region into a war which would see the entire world paying a devastating price. Let us have more diplomatic initiatives. The French initiative is a very important one. I received a note just a few minutes ago that tragically this initiative has now been withdrawn at the Security Council, that in fact the Iraqis have not responded positively to the initiative, and that the British initiative has subsequently been withdrawn as well.
Obviously, we are deeply disappointed in that. But surely that is not an argument for going to war. It is an argument for tiying harder for peace.
My leader has pointed out the importance of an international conference on the Middle East. Some say: "Well, we cannot have linkage". If an international conference to deal with the tragic plight of the Palestinians, to deal with Lebanon and with other concerns, and to ensure that Israel respects resolutions 242 and 338 was right before August 2, as it was, surely to God it is right today as well. If that can help to resolve this conflict, we should be doing everything we can to promote and encourage that conference. Indeed, the United Nations itself has called for the conference to take place.

The United Nations said that at an appropriate time, after the unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait, there will be a conference on the Middle East. We support that.



I also want to take this opportunity to express on behalf of my colleagues our condolences to the families of those senior leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Saleh Khalef and Hayel Abdel-Hamid, who were murdered yesterday. The cycle of violence continues in that region. All of us are devastated by that and certainly we would want to convey our sympathy and our regret to their families and as well to recognize-I think it is important to do this-that the effect of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait tragically once again is not to help the Palestinians, despite its protestation to the contrary.
The plight of the Palestinians in side and outside Kuwait, Kuwait, particularly in the occupied territories, is far worse after that invasion. That reinforces the importance of coming to an equitable solution to that tragic conflict.
The final point that my leader made in terms of our alternative to war is looking at collective means of resolving this dispute that falls short of war, for example, international arbitration through international agencies such as the International Court of Justice over questions of borders. Yes, there are disputes about borders, international arbitration, and Arab-Arab discussion and agreement over oil disputes. Yes, there were legitimate concerns about over production and under pricing, not just by Iraq and Kuwait, but also by the United Arab Emirates.
Certainly as a community of nations we must recognize the mad arms trade which fed this conflict. Remember that the Soviet Union, France, and other western countries were the major suppliers of arms to Iraq in its war with Iran and that Germany and German companies were the major suppliers of chemicals for chemical warfare. That arms trade, which has led to the possibility of chemical and biological warfare and of course the risk of nuclear weapons, must be confronted as well in that region if there is to be any lasting peace.
The people of Canada are deeply concerned about the prospects of this nation being drawn into a war. There have been demonstrations, rallies, letters, phone calls and telegrams. Particularly in extraordinary numbers are the young people at the rallies which I had the privilege of attending in Vancouver and Montreal. My colleagues
Government Orders
spoke in other locations such as the hon. member for Victoria in Ottawa and others across the land. We met as well with representatives of peace groups, a wide crosssection of peace groups in Canada, including the Canadian Peace Alliance, the Winnipeg Co-ordinating Committee for Disarmament-

-artists for peace, people who belong to the Echec a la guerre group and who led the fight in Quebec against the folly of war-

-the Anti-Arms Race in British Columbia, Greenpeace, World Federalists, the Mennonite Central Committee, Project Ploughshares, Oxfam, the United Nations Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. All these groups spoke with one voice to us and through us to the government of this country. These groups are saying no to war, that we must give peace a chance. That is our plea today.
War is wrong from every possible perspective. From the human perspective, there is the risk of a loss of literally hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. The Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War have documented that very eloquently. My colleagues will be speaking on the possibility of environmental disaster, particularly the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Skeena. There will be devastation of the environment and economic destruction of many parts of the world. The price of oil increasing dramatically will hit hardest the poorest countries, including those countries in eastern Europe that are struggling to rebuild their economies.
The toll on refugees would be incalculable. We know already that if the Red Sea is blocked, the consequences in getting aid to the Horn of Africa are devastating. We cannot take that risk. That could lead to impoverishment and famine for millions of people.
There are the geopolitical consequences of a war. What would the region look like after Iraq has been bombed into submission? Who would be the key players in the region? Iran? Syria? Imagine the consequences of a region dominated by those countries with the rise in fundamentalism in those countries.

Government Orders
Another consequence, and one that we must not forget is the fact that Canadians, particularly those of Iraqi and Arab origin, are already facing a sense of insecurity. We must ask what is the role of CSIS and other government agencies in contributing to this atmosphere of insecurity. We must not repeat the tragic mistakes that we made during and after World War II with Japanese Canadians, Italian Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians, and others.
I believe that it would be profoundly wrong for Canada to participate in this war. I believe deeply that surely to God we in the latter part of the 20th century must have a better way of resolving conflicts between nations and resorting to war.
Therefore I feel that Canada in the event of an armed conflict should not be drawn into that war. We are there to support sanctions. We are there in that important role. I want to pay tribute to the men and women in the Armed Forces who have done that and done that well. That is not the issue.
The fact is that if the region is plunged into a war that embargo would then become a blockade and, in international law, an act of war. Surely, in the event that there is an armed attack, Canada's role should be one of peacekeeping, a humanitarian role. There is a variety of ways we can achieve that.
If there is to be war in the world, in Canada at this time, let it not be a war with catastrophic consequences, not just for the Middle East but for the entire globe. Let it be a war on poverty, on homelessness, on environmental destruction, on AIDS, on racism, and on sexism. Let it be a war on the obscenity of over a billion children on this planet living in poverty. Let that be the war that we collectively wage on behalf of the people of this planet.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Svend Johannes Robinson: In closing, let me be very clear. We support the United Nations. We have always supported a strong and effective United Nations.

Ever since it was founded and even before, the New Democratic Party has always endorsed the principles of the United Nations. But, the best way to endorse the principles of the United Nations charter is of course to advocate a peaceful settlement, not war.

I want to close on a personal note. I had hoped that arising from this conflict, and from the end of the cold war, there might be a new vision, and a new role for the United Nations.
The last time that the United States was involved in a war was the war in Vietnam. It took a toll of over 55,000 lives and tens of thousands more scarred, injured. For what?
My family we lived in the United States during that war. My mother and father left the United States at great personal cost because they did not want to support an immoral war. They did not want their son to be drafted to fight in that immoral war. I fervently hope that Canada, 25 years later, will not plunge into another equally or even more destructive war. As Canadians across this country have pleaded with this government, let us give peace a chance.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the critic from the New Democratic Party on that emotional and very clear presentation of the position of his party. He reinforced something that the Leader of the Liberal Party said in his speech, that our troops are there now to enforce the embargo, to enforce the sanctions. "But once war is declared that embargo becomes a blockade", said our leader, and when he said that some members on the government side laughed.
I am wondering if the critic from the New Democratic Party whose profession is law, I would indicate on what basis he makes that definition of an embargo becoming a blockade and once it becomes a blockade our troops being in a state of war. Can he clarify to the House where he gets this definition of an embargo becoming a blockade and so on? I think this might educate some of the members on the other side.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize first that this debate is not about legal niceties. This debate is about the role that Canada might be playing in a situation of war.
On the precise question, the issue raised by my colleague, we can look at any text on international law-whether it be Dicey or any other text of international law-and in the event of armed conflict breaking out, an embargo becomes in law a blockade and a blockade in international law is construed as an act of war.

More important, we have to look at the reality of the situation. If in fact the community of nations, or at least the coalition or members of the coalition, decide to abandon sanctions and to launch an attack, an attack which would involve aerial assault and land forces, quite clearly the strategy of sanctions would have been overtaken. Given the fact that Canada's role is there to enforce sanctions, surely we would recognize that we would not want to be part of that kind of military offensive in those circumstances. I believe that is the position the people of Canada would take, that we should be enforcing sanctions and not be part of a military offensive.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to congratulate my colleague and state how strongly we support the views that he presenting and those of our leader earlier today.
I would like to raise one point that has been niggling at me since the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon. If I heard him correctly, he used the Korean war as an example of a justification for another UN-U.S. armed intervention. I know he will recall that in that instance it was a UN initiative or a U.S. cloaked in the UN initiative. Canada participated as part of Commonwealth troops. The North Koreans succeeded in pushing the exceedingly well equipped U.S. forces, to the middle of Korea, which is essentially where it all began in the first place.
During that period many thousands of people were killed. There were massive numbers of refugees. I saw many people in hospital including Canadians who were injured. There were many orphans. A whole generation was affected. The war ended up in a complete no-win situation, which I think is where all wars end up. Korea was child's play compared to the gulf war with regard to chemical and nuclear threat.
Would the member like to comment on the fact that war is really a no-win situation from anyone's point of view and that there is absolutely no justification for the killing of men and women in the armed forces and for the many civilians who would be affected?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, before responding to the specific question, I would like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Vancouver East and point out that as a woman she in many ways has represented very eloquent-
Govemment Orders
ly and forcefully the position of women across this country who according to the opinion polls in significantly greater numbers than men, are recognizing the madness of war. It is an interesting point that that is the case. I hope that we will hear the voices of many, if not all, women in this House before this debate is concluded.
Just briefly, I would like to agree with the point the hon. member is making. Korea is surely not an example of the success of the United Nations. Yes, there was a UN command, but the Soviet Union was not even present at the Security Council when the decision was made. It was outside the Security Council. Instead of looking backward at what has happened in the past-yes, we must draw the lessons from the past-surely we should be looking forward.
A challenge that faces all of us is to build a new collective security framework through the United Nations and through regional bodies such as the CSCE that makes the possibility of war unthinkable. My personal view is that that is exactly the situation: war would be unthinkable in the gulf and it should be unthinkable in any arena. Surely we have moved beyond the madness of war. As a community of nations through the United Nations, we must be able to come up with other alternatives including sanctions that recognize that no one ever wins a war.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, briefly I would like to commend my colleague, the member for Burnaby-Kingsway, on his very good outline of our position against the war.
I would like to invite him to comment further on the question of sanctions, which is the principle means that has been used until now to try to bring about a negotiated solution. Are there ways in which the member suggests the sanctions against Kuwait could be strengthened?
It has been suggested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the sanctions may be effective against Iraqi people but not against the Iraqi ruler and military. Can the member comment on whether it is possible for even the most blood-thirsty government to continue military action, which he is doing now, with absolutely no support from his people?

January 15, 1991
Government Orders


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I still believe that the economic sanctions already in place, can work without being tightened, and that their impact can even increase with time. Madam Speaker, we have evidence-


Mrs. Gibeau:: What evidence?


Svend Johannes Robinson: If it was not so, we could still tighten the sanctions. There are many ways to do so. But let's not forget, Madam Speaker, that economic sanctions have worked in other conflicts, such as in Rhodesia where they had quite an impact. They also worked in Nepal and in South Africa. However, to give up economic sanctions in favour of a catastrophic war would be pure madness.


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, today this House is debating the grave Persian Gulf issue for the third time in three months. The stakes are much higher than they were on October 23 and on November 29 because today, January 15, 1991 the world faces the passing of a critical, political and military deadline.
The shameful aggression by Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi army in a savage attack on their Arab neighbour, Kuwait, has been universally deplored and condemned by the world's nations in an extraordinary display of united condemnation.
Kuwait was ruthlessly attacked, conquered, and annexed by Iraq, a country with the fourth-largest army in the world. Saddam Hussein has been neither repentant nor apologetic. Rather, he has made it clear that Kuwait is only one of a series of conquests yet to come, despite the fact that most of its neighbours are, like Kuwait, full-fledged sovereign members of the United Nations.
All Canadians are pondering the enormous risks inherent in the decision we will take here this week. The consequences of war are staggering and abhorrent. It is precisely for this reason that I welcome this opportunity to express my views in this historic debate.
For a Minister of Veterans Affairs, the prospect of war in the Persian Gulf is especially painful, as the brutal aftermath of any military conflict is an every day reality in my department. On a daily basis, we deal with men who were blinded during the trench warfare of World War I. Chemical warfare is nothing new to them. We look after men and women wounded in mind, body and spirit who will spend the rest of their days in rehabilitation centres, hospitals, nursing homes or psychiatric wards. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, no Minister of Veterans Affairs could regard another war with anything but dread and apprehension.
In the constituency I serve our war veterans would be the last to treat our country's entry into military conflict lightly. They went to war and saw the blood, the suffering, the destruction first-hand and the deaths.
It is for these profound reasons that this government has pursued consistently and diligently a peaceful resolution to this crisis. The legacy of our remaining veterans and of their comrades buried in foreign soil is still with us. The memory of their sacrifices has ensured that Canada seek all legitimate avenues for peace. This we have done and will continue to do.
Remaining true to their memory, however, demands that we respect why our veterans fought for Canada so bravely-to preserve freedom, to establish a new world order, and to fight naked, barbaric aggression. To adopt a posture of peace at all costs would violate their memory and invalidate their sacrifices. This we will not do.
Ironically, most Canadians living today never experienced the hardships of war. Over two-thirds of Canadians were not born until after World War II. Over 55 per cent of Canadians were born after the Korean war.
Many of our veterans, indeed the Canadian populace as a whole, know that something extremely important is at stake in the gulf, and that is, how far should the world go in thwarting naked and brutal aggression by the bullies of the world.
There are some stark lessons to be learned by an examination of history. That is clearly shown in the failure of the League of Nations between the two world wars. The lesson learned was that appeasement and a reluctance to deal with aggression in the past ended with abysmal failure and may have cost more lives in the long run.
January 15, 1991

Therefore, after the Second World War the free world resolved to establish a new organization, the United Nations, which would avoid the errors and the weaknesses of the League of Nations. Canada was a founding member of the United Nations and has always been an enthusiastic supporter member-nation.
Today, in fact, we are a member of the Security Council of that organization. Standing 31st in population among member nations, Canada is fourth in financial contributions to the United Nations' efforts. Canada's support of the United Nations has not stopped there. We proved it in Korea 40 years ago with 26,000 volunteers. We have always been at the forefront of United Nations' efforts at peacekeeping. All Canadians are proud of the fact that Canadian troops won the Nobel Prize for Peace for our efforts and our contributions over the last 45 years.
We are being called upon to support the United Nations by supporting a simple, straightforward resolution, namely, "that this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait".
Five and a half months have passed since Iraq attacked Kuwait. Negotiations, talks, peace missions, diplomacy, economic sanctions, embargoes, and, above all, enduring patience has failed to persuade Saddam Hussein to leave the conquered territory.
The leadership of Iraq has been consistently intransigent and obstinate, despite the fact that most nations of the world are united in condemning their brutal aggression against another sovereign United Nations member-nation.
Twelve resolutions of the United Nations Security Council-several of them drafted and co-sponsored by Canada-have been totally ignored by Iraq. Over 30 nations have provided troops and materiel to enforce these resolutions.
Diplomatic efforts have thus far been unsuccessful and economic sanctions have been endured simply because Hussein has an uncanny ability to pass on their effects to the Iraqi poor, rather than to the political and military leadership of that country.
Government Orders
If a bully nation invades and annexes another sovereign nation and the free world ignores it, then world peace and world order is clearly in peril. Freedom, independence, peace and order become hollow and meaningless words.
Canada and other peaceful nations have much at stake here. The question is, simply put, will world order be sacrificed for political expediency, appeasement and lack of resolve when the going gets tough? I for one do not think it should. I believe the efforts of the United Nations and the 30 nation coalition deserve our unqualified support and the support of the Canadian people.
Canadians are a peace-loving people, respected world-wide simply because we have never been seen as a threat to other nations. Victor Suthren, Director of the Canadian War Museum, aptly described the Canadian psyche when he said:
Canadians have fought as troops of France, of Britain, and finally, of their own nation. They have fought with a ferocious capability that has given them, a markedly unmilitaristic people, a military reputation far more respected than those of many nations who play more dramatically at the parade-ground chauvinism and machismo of overt militarism.
Canadians maintain dedicated armed forces of minimal size, and get on with the peace, order and good government of a highly civilized and self-disciplined people. Forced to take up arms, they have done so to put an end to war or fighting. Having matched and beaten armed bullies, they put weapons away with little ostentatious crowing and get on with the nation's life. They do not, ever, (Canadians) play at war, nor do they see the gun as a solution to social injustice or personal failure -
Victor Suthren goes on to say that Canadians are and I quote:
Men and women of a peaceable nature, able to live without war precisely because they can be so fearfully good at it without a shred of romance.
No rational person wants to see war unless every possible effort to preserve peace has been exhausted. At this crucial time in our history it would appear that, barring a miracle, the moment of truth has arrived. This is truly an hour of anxiety for our country and certainly an hour of destiny that we as legislators cannot escape.
It is for the reasons I have stated that I support our government and I support the United Nations. Having little choice but to vote for what could lead to war, I continue to pray for peace.

Government Orders


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has taken part in this debate.
Like him, I have talked to many veterans in my riding of Parkdale-High Park. Most of the ones I spoke to told me to come to Ottawa today to take part in this debate, but to fight for avoiding participating in any military action.
The advice they are giving me is that the sanctions should be given more time to work, that we should explore further diplomatic channels, but at all costs avoid going to war, I think for the very reasons the minister mentioned. They were in war. They shed blood. They lost their colleagues, so they know what war is all about.
The minister's government deals and rules a lot and makes many decisions based on polls. I would like to ask the minister whether his department or he himself has taken polls across Canada among our veterans, and what percentage urged the government to allow sanctions more time to work and other diplomacy, as opposed to military action.
There is a second question I would like to pose to him. He heard our leader make an amendment, to the government motion, because clearly as the resolution states it does commit our troops to an offensive role as of midnight tonight, January 15.
I am wondering if he could give reasons whether he will support the official opposition amendment. If not, would he explain why he could not support the amendment? With the amendment we might be able to support the government motion but, if the government refuses to accept our amendment, there is no way that our party can give the government carte blanche to commit our troops as of midnight tonight to be in an offensive mode versus the defensive mode they are in now.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Madam Speaker, on the first question the hon. member asked regarding whether or not we have taken polls, I should point out that this government-and I am not trying to be light-hearted here- certainly does not govern by polls. Perhaps we should, but we do not do that.
The important thing here is that I have talked to the leadership of the veterans groups. In fact I talked to them even as late as today. While I cannot speak for
every single member of those groups, they do know the importance of standing the ground, standing on principle, and standing up for what they fought for and what their comrades died for, that is world order and a cessation of brutal aggression anywhere it happens around the world. They are our strongest defenders of peace and of world order. They support the United Nations and they support generally the United Nations efforts, and they have indicated that to our government in writing.
I would like to say, although I am not going to quote exactly the wording, that they are the most thoughtful people in the world when it comes to war because they know the brutality. They have seen it. They have felt it. They have heard it. They have tasted it. Therefore I treat their views with a great deal of respect.
The hon. member's second question, was do we support his leader's amendment as proposed earlier today in the debate? Obviously midnight tonight-and I made this veiy clear-has been a deadline that has been known for a long period of time. I have never treated lightly the importance of this deadline to the Canadian people or to the 30-country coalition that has staked a great deal on resolution 678 and indeed the other 11 resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations.
I support personally what the United Nations is doing. Without it, where will this all end? Do we reward aggression? Do we say to Saddam Hussein: "You have done well; continue and go on"? Or, do we do something and provide a deadline and seek the support of other member nations around the world, which has been done, and say: "Look, enough is enough. This is the time and this must stop, and here is what must happen"? It is a very simple thing. They must clear out of the country they have conquered, the country they have annexed.
I think that is a fair thing. I support that view and I support the United Nations.


Guy H. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, I have just a few points. I would like to congratulate the minister on his speech. Coming from my home province, I am very proud to have him here as a minister speaking on this very serious issue. Although we belong to different parties and we have a different point of view, I think it is important that we all have a chance to state our point of view.

I would like to set the record straight because it is important that we let people know where all parties and all MPs stand in regard to the United Nations resolution. There seems to be a misunderstanding out there as to our position with regard to the UN. In closing the minister mentioned that he supports the United Nations. I have to state that the Liberal Party of Canada also supports the United Nations.
Let us look at the events. When Iraq invaded Kuwait we supported the resolution in the House of Commons on October 23,1990 which was in support of UN Security Council resolutions 660 and 662. When it came time for mandatory sanctions under UN resolutions 661 and 670, we supported them as well. When it came to using military force to enforce those sanctions, we supported that. But there comes a point in time when we have to consider whether we have gone far enough, and that is where we differ.
I think that all members of the House, regardless of what party we belong to and what part of the country we come from, have the same object in mind, that is to force Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. The difference of opinion is in how to do that.
I want to make sure that the minister knows well that we have the same intention that he has, but we have a different means of achieving it. We feel that sanctions should have been given more of a chance to work. Statements in the fall by the President of the United States, by the Secretary of State of the United States, and by the CIA commissioner indicated that the sanctions were working. Experts would agree that it takes roughly 12 months for those sanctions to work. We feel that it is very important that we give those sanctions time to work. I felt it very important that I put those comments on record this evening.
I would also like to say-and I am sure the minister would agree-that we support the military efforts over there, in the sense that our military has been very professional in the way it has carried out its functions in the gulf. I would like to applaud our military experts for the way they have carried out their duties in the second major crisis in the last 12 months. They are very professional and they have proven it again. Let us hope that we can avoid this war.
Government Orders


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the obvious sincerity of the hon. member for Restigouche- Chaleur. I have known him for some time and I know that he speaks with deep sincerity on important issues.
The bottom line here is the fact that we have had naked aggression by one country over a neighbouring country. These people have used force, killed, pillaged, raped, driven out half the country's population, and annexed that country as a province of their own. That is the bottom line. Something had to be done. Somebody has to stand on principle. The United Nations and the 30-member coalition has done that, and they have given a deadline.
I know there is a good deal of argument-and I have heard a great deal about it in debate today-indicating that sanctions have not been given enough time. The fact of the matter is there is no proof and, according to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, he has received no proof that the sanctions or the embargo have really worked.
Proof positive of that is the fact that Saddam Hussein has not changed his mind. He is not the least bit sorry. He is not going to leave the country he has conquered. What will change his mind is not the sanctions. Some countries have had sanctions applied to them for as many as 10 years. How much time are we going to give them to dig in deeper, to build more defences, to develop more arms and perhaps even nuclear weapons to kill our troops when the United Nations finally would decide to take action? There has to be a time limit. That time limit has been given. It has been five and a half months since that aggression, and I think it is time that he did that. I do not see any proof that Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi people are repentant or willing to get out. They are just laughing with disdain and impunity at the United Nations and indeed the whole world. He does not care what will happen.
The two major negatives in allowing him more time are the fact that it will allow more time for building defences and, the sheer principle that a deadline was given five and a half months after naked aggression and the conquering of another country. He has had lots of time to show some movement, some willingness to co-operate with what the world agrees is a wrongdoing by his country and by his people.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
What happens if we keep backing off and rewarding Saddam Hussein by saying: "This is all right. Deadlines do not matter. Don't pay attention to the United Nations. Don't pay attention. It doesn't matter"? I think sometime free and thinking people have to stand their ground, have to stand on principle, have to take a stand on things like this. Today is that day, and I support that.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, the crisis in the Persian Gulf is attracting universal attention. It is almost impossible to go anywhere without hearing about the crisis and the threat of war.
As I was listening to the Minister, I heard him say near the end of his remarks that there was no evidence the sanctions were working. I just cannot understand that after I have heard the greatest world experts agree that the sanctions against Iraq are working. I could quote figures provided to the u.s. Congress by Senator Mitchell, a man held in high esteem there. Tennessee Senator Gore, Senator Edward Kennedy, and even the leaders of the CIA have clearly indicated that the sanctions against Iraq are really working.
In spite of that, there are people who still claim that these sanctions will not bring Iraq to its knees. Yet, our own colleagues in the House, more specifically Mr. Axworthy, the hon members for Winnipeg South Centre, Burnaby-Kingsway and Fundy Royal, and Mr. Corbett, have seen with their own eyes that the sanctions are in the process of beating Iraq as an aggressor.
It is a fact that the whole history of the Middle East did not begin on August 2. It was following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq that public opinion suddenly became aware more than ever of the Middle East. This problem goes back a hundred years and represents a hundred years of injustice and exploitation of the people because there is oil underground. There are countries of the world which are determined to take over this wealth, even if it is not situated in their own country. But is it surprising that the Middle East crisis came finally to a head?
In the u.s. Congress, various senators have given concrete evidence that the sanctions were working. Of course, they are party to privileged information. 90 per cent of all Iraq imports have stopped. Even the Iraqi
currency paper is printed in England. Does this give you an idea just how much Iraq is on its knees? It is a country without an industrial infrastructure. It went overnight from camels to Cadillacs. It has no infrastructure. It depends on world imports. Tbgether with other countries, Canada has managed to maintain an embargo.
Since the November 8 elections in the Congress however, we have been hearing a totally different story: we should be taking military measures and risk causing a war which would have a very uncertain outcome at the price of a tremendous loss of innocent lives. What for, when we can count on the support of other nations in the application of sanctions? That is a fact. So, it is no use trying to make us believe that sanctions do not work. It just is not true! The record will show that, if there is a war, it will be a point against the countries that started it and that is absolutely not necessary.

The longer sanctions are maintained, the weaker the aggressor, Iraq, becomes. The aggressor is weakening and what can be more desirable under the circumstances? We do not fight and they get weaker.
Logically, Iraq cannot continue for an indefinite period of time. The aggressor, Saddam Hussein, has a short countdown against him that is in our favour. One does not have to be a military strategist to understand the precarious situation that Iraq is facing internally.
In listening to the American senators in Congress, it became obvious that no one could criticize sanctions. No one could say they were not effective because they know they are effective. They work. Iraqis have no industrial infrastructure and they have no industry to maintain their military force that is needed. The Iraqis are completely dependent on imports and, as I mentioned before, their paper currency is actually printed in England. Can you imagine?
Canada's role in this whole affair has been diminished. We are not a military force nor a deterrent, for that matter, but in the past we never felt diminished because of our reputation as a peacekeeper. We were trusted and we had an independent foreign policy. Other countries could look to Canada as a sort of moral authority, requesting our support in the United Nations. What has

happened in such a few short months? How can we be part and parcel of the American military camp?
We belong with the community of nations, under the flag and auspices of the United Nations, resolutely determined to use all efforts to prevent war, to maintain international law, to use sanctions, embargoes, diplomacy, pressure from all quarters to bring sanity to the surface, to wear down the aggressor, demoralize the aggressor, and to deprive the aggressor of any means to continue or maintain any course of aggression. That is where we belong. That is where all peaceful nations belong.
The crisis in the Middle East is not unexpected. There have been years of turmoil and injustice, and God knows there has been injustice. As my colleague from Western Arctic mentioned, if there were to be a conflict or war in the Middle East, we would see the emergence of other Saddam Husseins to bring vengeance on what has happened. That is obvious.
Consider the injustice and the struggle to control that oil resource in the Middle East. There was the setting up of arbitrary borders in the past, the maintaining of undemocratic regimes of kings, princes, and emirs who monpolized the wealth for their own private benefit, much of which finds its way into the American treasury in the form of bonds, European banks, and investments in other countries-but not for their own people. We are supporting leaders like that.
Canada now faces a crossroads in our history. Are we now part of those nations that risk conflict abroad, citing national interests as a reason? We do not belong in that group. We see ourselves as peacemakers and we are not powder monkeys.

History taught us that when there is a conflict, the threat of war is not a solution. As some of my colleagues pointed out, in a war there are no winners, only losers. Some lose less than others, but there are only losers. In this Middle East conflict, I hope everybody will come back to their senses once they realize that sanctions are the best way to put an end to an agression.
For once in the history of humanity, we have the chance to prove that sanctions are effective. That is the biggest step forward we can make in our civilization, to prove once and for all that there is no need to start wars,
Government Orders
to launch attacks, and to make innocent victims. Too many innocents have died in the Middle-East. Must we recall the sacrifice foreign armed forces have inflicted upon Lebanon? Must we recall the suffering of Palestinians who have been treated unfairly for years and years? Nothing was done for them.


Some hon. members:: We are still doing nothing.


Mark Joseph Assad: That is right, we are still doing nothing. But, if a country produces oil, however little, we are there in the national interest. That is the worse case of hypocrisy I have even seen.
Canada has had an established reputation in the world for years, under Pearson, Saint-Laurent, Trudeau and even under John Diefenbaker who, admittedly, made sure that Canada had its own foreign policy completely independent from that of the United States.
In closing, if ever I wished and prayed for something in my life, it is that Canada agrees to tell the United States and any other country joining it: "We will give the sanctions time to produce their effect, even if it takes months or a year." The experts say it is a matter of time. We have plenty of time. We have behind us 5,000 years of wars, injustices, sacrifices and killings. Why not wait another six months and allow civilization to take another step forward?
I would like our country to be among those who told the world: "We are for sanctions and against any conflict that could lead to war. We believe that in time, with the support of other nations, we will achieve our goal and preserve peace. For the first time in the history of humankind, we will put an end to armed conflicts and finally eliminate agressors from this planet.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate warmly my colleague, an authentic Quebecer whose mother was a French Canadian from Quebec and whose father was Lebanese will. He is able to reason and understand as many men and women in Quebec what is going on in the Middle East.
I will not make a speech or comments in this period of response to my colleague's speech, but will rather will ask him a direct question. I want to congratulate him for his attachment and also his sense of continuity since coming here in Parliament. He is not a man who changes his mind from one day to the next. I want to congratulate

Government Orders
him for that also. He has made a remarkable contribution to the discussion in caucus. We are not allowed to refer to that, but it has been admirable. I would like to put to him a simple question.
Would he please expand on his opinion that more than ever the time has come to announce an international conference on all the issues in the Middle East? That in such a case, the Prime Minister of Canada should, without fear, show leadership at the United Nations through his Secretary of State for External Affairs in attempting a last great initiative. I ask my colleague to comment in a friendly way on what I have just said.


Mark Joseph Assad: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very kind words. Of course, for years that we have hoped that some nations, be it from Europe or America, would finally decide to have an international conference on the situation in the Middle East. There is no doubt that it would have been the greatest pride my country could have given me if Canada had taken the lead and told the United Nations that the time has finally and inevitably come to have an international conference to solve the problems of the Middle East, to remedy the injustices of the past,-to ensure that the Lebanese live in peace in their country, that the Palestinians find a place to rest their heads, and that Israel be safe from aggressors within guaranteed borders. But as long as the situation is such in the Middle East that we tolerate countries that have no notion of democracy but have an extremely important resource, as long as we refuse to face the real problems in the Middle East, we cannot expect that this conflict will be resolved by miracle or force. Even if they blew up three-quarters of the Middle East, it would not solve the problem.
If there ever was a time, I say that this time has come, and maybe this is the message that the opposition-as much from the Liberal Party as from the New Democratic Party-would like to send to this government and to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, asking them to make this last effort, to take this initiative to the United Nations and say that if an international conference can help to settle this matter, than let us propose it. That is to be hoped for.


Mrs. Deputy Speaker:: Other questions or comments? Resuming debate. The hon. member for Bourassa.


Marie Gibeau: Madam Speaker, the stakes of the issue we are discussing tonight are extremely high and I would like to say that I was struck by the sincerity, the seriousness and the thoughtfulness of the speeches of the members who spoke before me.
Most of the people in my riding of Bourassa, like most of our fellow Canadians, are not experts in international politics. They do not spend their days trying to grasp the nuances and the vagaries of international relations. They spend their days earning a living and trying to improve the well-being of their family. Nevertheless, they are well-meaning people who rely on common sense to judge what is happening. When faced with issues such as Canadian participation in the gulf crisis, they are in the habit of asking direct and practical questions. They want to know why Canada got involved in this crisis. After all, is it not a far region and is it not a conflict between Arab countries trying to gain control of a greater share of oil? Why should we put in jeopardy the lives of hundreds of men and women, some from Montreal North, for a question of oil? What does this mean for people in my riding of Bourassa, for Quebecers, and for Canadians?
Although it is always tricky to try to explain complex situations with analogies, they can often illustrate the fundamentals of a question. In my opinion an invasion is neither more nor less than a robbery. Thking control of the territory of a neighbouring country is like stealing from a neighbour, and even worse, it is like beating neighbour to steal his property.
In the case of Kuwait the neighbour in question supplied a good part of the oil the world needs. Consequently, the robbery is of concern not only to the two parties. It involves the whole community. If the community does not intervene to prevent the robbery and the violence, which neighbour is going to be the next victim? That is the crux of the issue in this debate.
We cannot tolerate such acts because of the consequences for everyone and because, according to our principles and moral values, such acts are unacceptable and intolerable. If we do not tolerate aggression and violence in our towns and cities, why on earth should we tolerate aggression and violence in the international community?
January 15, 1991

Over the years, we have developed a system of laws and regulations to protect persons and property, in other words, to ensure that our fellow citizens behave in a manner that is acceptable. On a world scale, there are certain conventions and there is a code of behaviour to which most countries generally adhere. There are rules to ensure there is peace and order in the global village. The agency responsible for monitoring compliance with those rules is the UN Security Council.
Since the invasion of Kuwait last August, the Security Council's approach has been balanced and decisive. It was able to maintain a consensus when adopting twelve consecutive resolutions. The UN has explored all diplomatic avenues, which includes the latest visit to Baghdad by Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar, to find a peaceful solution to the gulf crisis. The Government of Iraq has reacted with intransigence, insolence, and indifference.
Faced with this lack of co-operation on the part of Iraq, on November 29, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 678, according to which member States are allowed to use all necessary means to ensure compliance with the previous resolutions, and more specifically, to oust the Iraqi forces and restore Kuwait's legitimate government.
This resolution was adopted on November 29. But in spite of numerous efforts to solve the crisis by pacific means, the Government of Iraq did not show any sign of changing its politics and its attitude in the matter. Thus, it appears to be unwilling to collaborate. It knowingly chose not to respect the international order, the United Nations, and the UN resolutions. The Iraqi government is an international outlaw, no less. Like all outlaws, it must suffer the consequences of its actions.
However, there is quite a striking difference between the Iraqi government's situation and that of the common criminal who makes the headlines. The fact is that the international community offers a way out to the Iraqi government, and a pacific one at that. It is up to Saddam Hussein to choose his destiny. Will he leave Kuwait of his own free will, or will he wait for the community of nations to force him to do it? Will he choose a pacific
Government Orders
solution, or will he persist in defying international order, thus forcing a tragic confrontation with the international community?
Faced an obstinate and intransigent aggressor, should the international community bow down itself or should it take the necessary means to force the aggressor to retreat behind its own borders?
I suggest that on the basis of these considerations, only one conclusion can be drawned. Yes, we must constantly seek diplomatic and peaceful solutions to the crisis. Yes, we must maintain the UN imposed sanctions. However, is there any evidence that these sanctions have had any effect on the Iraqi government? None, as far as I know. Although they may have caused serious problems to the Iraqi people, after five months, they do not seem to have charged anything in the arrogance and inflexibility of the Baghdad regime. How long should we wait? Six months, a year, five years? There is no answer to that. After all that time, what would remain of Kuwait?
The presence of Iraqi forces has already been detrimental to the people, the economy and the infrastructure of Kuwait. Moreover, if the international coalition does not act decisively and efficiently, the whole international order and the principles of collective security will be seriously jeopardized. Failing a decisive action, the United Nations, credibility and effectiveness could rank among the major victims of the gulf crisis. We do not want to return to a situation where the only law which would prevail in this world would be the law of the strongest.
We are dealing with collective security. The invasion of Kuwait has already destabilized an already volatile region which is of tremendous importance for our interests and the health of the world economy. Through the United Nations, the international community must take action to re-establish the territorial integrity of Kuwait, one of its full members, failing which the notion of collective security would remain a purely theoretical view. We would endorse that might is right. Our words must be supported by our action.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
Moreover, the invasion of Kuwait has profoundly disturbed the economic stability as well as the physical and social well-being of several countries in the world. That region of the Middle East contains more than 40 per cent of the world's oil reserves and the disastrous repercussions of rising oil prices are felt throughout the nation-inflation, unemployment, slower economic growth, not to mention a number of other problems related to international trade. This economic instability directly affects Third World countries as well as Eastern Europeans for whom oil prices amount to a major obstacle to economic recovery.
Canada is a pacifist nation, but it is also a responsible people in the world community. We have thoroughly explored all diplomatic and pacifist options, all the while stressing that any initiative whatever would be taken under the banner of the United Nations. But the Iraqi government is not prepared to release its grip on the territory and the people of Kuwait. There is no indication of a compromise.
The moment of truth has arrived. But this moment of truth has arrived not only for the Iraqi government, but also for the United Nations, for international order, and for the promotion of collective security. Our duty is to protect the weak from the strong. We simply cannot allow Saddam Hussein and his government to benefit from his aggression against Kuwait. Sooner or later he will have to realize that the international community cannot condone such acts of violence and territorial aggression.
The survival of Kuwait is at stake, the future of the Middle East is at stake, and the future of international order as well as the credibility of the United Nations are at stake. The international community must be able to rely on Canada. In short, Madam Speaker, Canada has to be there.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade on her presentation. I know she is very knowledgeable on this subject. She concluded her debate by asking an open question of us all.
We are looking at the future international order and we are looking at the future of the United Nations.
I would like to ask her whether the credibility of the United Nations and its ability to solve similar problems in the future would not be enhanced if this dispute were resolved without military intervention. If this crisis has to be resolved through military intervention, would this not undermine the future world order and undermine the future effectiveness of the United Nations?


Marie Gibeau: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, who sits on the Standing Committee on External Affairs, for his question.
Obviously, the goal of the United Nations is to ensure the over-all protection of nations, that is the protection of their territory as well as their people. The United Nations promoted and proposed measures that would have allowed the invading country to withdraw of its own free will from the country it had attacked without any provocation.
These resolutions have not changed, and are still in force until midnight today. That gives us four hours. We can still hope for a miracle the one which allowed Saddam Hussein to release the hostages. He could have a vision telling him to start moving his troops out of Kuwait.
In 45 years of existence, the United Nations has made several attempts at getting to what we now have, that is an unprecedented coalition with forces coming from a great many countries and taking a united stand against an agressor.
I agree with you that a peaceful solution would be the best. Everyone would be a winner. However, in this instance, we do not get to choose between peace and war. Unfortunately, what we have to deal with here is an invading country guilty of pillage, rape and plundering againt a sovereign nation which had a legitimate gov-ernement and is a member of the United Nations. Given the circumstances, the United Nations, of which Canada is also a member, cannot afford to break apart at this point in time.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, my question is for the member whose speech was an attempt to speak to the practical and day-to-day concerns of her constituents in Bourassa.

Estimates flowing from the United States practice attacks that have taken place in the Middle East against fortifications similar to those which are said to be in place in Kuwait and in parts of Iraq, place the casualty rate has been at upward of 50 per cent, of those who would have been killed in these mock exercises.
I have two sons-I have one who is 23 and another who is about to turn 16. How many children, how many young people from our country on ships, planes and on the ground in the Persian Gulf does she expect to die as a consequence of military action? Would she bring herself to answer that practical and down-to-earth question for her constituents in Bourassa? Would she bring herself to answer the question for constituents of all of us who face the prospect of sons and daughters dying in a war thousands of miles away, having to do with the price of petroleum, having to do with the national interests of the United States, and having very little to do with the national interests of this country? What is her estimate of the number of Canadians who will die in military action as a consequence of the armed recourse which she recommends?


Marie Gibeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has just managed to pull off a feat worthy of the great Greek tragedies. I would like to return the question to him: How many children is he willing to sacrifice in Kuwait? How many women and children is he willing to let starve through economic sanctions that we know are not 100 per cent effective because there are leaks everywhere. It is not only food that leaks into Iraq through Iran, but also military equipment. My colleague opposite knows that. Sanctions are not effective. Borders are not tightly closed. We are dismissing our responsibilities to save our necks. I am talking about mine and yours. How far will hypocrisy go to save whose neck?
The hon. member is saying that children out there are not important, neither those from Kuwait, nor those from Iraq and neighbouring countries seriously threatened because an individual has decided that starving his people to him.
Government Orders
I find it unfortunate that a person would use this House to raise fears that are real, but at the same time to hide behind those fears. And that person belongs to a party that claims to be responsible.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Bourassa. It is quite simple. We are being intellectually dishonest here. We are debating a motion, pretending that it deals with a UN resolution so that we can all feel good in this place. In actual fact, we are debating a motion to give approval to send Canadian men and women of our Armed Forces to war.
What I want to ask the member, clearly and cleanly is if she believes that an affirmative vote on this motion gives the Prime Minister of this country, without further recall of this Parliament, the authorization to order Canadian forces into a theatre of war, in the event that American forces go into Iraq or Kuwait.


Marie Gibeau: Madam Speaker, I have heard the words "intellectual dishonesty". I do not know to whom they apply. They do not apply to this side of the House. Maybe he wants them applied to himself. I have said in my speech at the very beginning that I had been impressed by the quality and by the serioussness of the debates heard up to now. I do hope we will not witness a deterioration as we get closer to the deadline.
My colleague's question has no link with the present debate. I fail to see why we are departing. The subject under debate refers to responsibility. Does Canada really pretend to belong to the international community? Will Canada really fulfill its commitments to the United Nations? Will Canada really respect its so-called principle that, all peoples are equal for the United Nations?


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in this very important debate. The motion under Government Business reads:

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
An amendment was moved to the motion to add:
"through the continued use of economic sanctions, such support to
exclude offensive military action by Canada at this time."
It is somewhat ironic and cynical to be debating this issue at this hour, 8.05 p.m., four hours less five minutes to the deadline. It is theatre of the absurd.
The die is cast. I do not know what that die will mean, but certainly Canada and this debate are not going to effect the changes that would be required if we wanted to have a different outcome.
It is unfortunate that we were not able to get into this debate in a much more enlightened way, and certainly sooner, in the course of the events that have led us to this moment.
I rise with a great sense of sadness, concern and yes, a degree of despair at the way events seem to be propelling themselves forward in the Persian Gulf. I know I share that view with many Canadians. There seems almost to be a sense of resignation in the air as the breakout of hostilities in the Persian Gulf appears imminent.
Canadians just have to turn on their TV sets to see the military strategies being played out time and time again, scenarios that must frighten men, women, children, mothers, sons and daughters. I fear that this war, if it comes, may have come too quickly, and I regret that this government did not fight with more strength and conviction when it held that important seat on the Security Council which would have enabled it to promote the role of sanctions to a much greater extent.
Sanctions have not been given enough time. For whatever reason, the coalition of countries is now backed into a comer from which there appears to be little room to exit. Under these conditions, Canadians feel very helpless. They see and sense a degree of powerlessness, and I share that sentiment.
I share that sense of being unable to change the course of history. I recall the feelings I had as I saw the faces of the school children describing their fear of what is to come on the television cameras last night.
lb be sure, as the hours tick down toward the UN deadline, no stone can be left unturned, no avenue
should be left untested, and no option for peace can be rejected out of hand. At the same time, we cannot afford to give up on the very reason that the allied nations began this whole effort, to turn back Saddam Hussein's aggression without condition, and to stop this madman without offering something in exchange, without giving him a reward for the atrocities that he has committed and without making a linkage to other situations in the Middle East, because that is absolutely ridiculous and is not related.
I believe that we can, even at this last minute, achieve effective change if there is the public will on the part of all the countries that have come together to apply sanctions and to tighten the belt. At least we have the moral obligation to tiy that first. It must be very clear so that we can never say that we did not tiy all the options, that we did not try at least until they proved that they could not function.
To date, many experts have said-and that includes the director of the CIA and former Secretaries of State of the United States-that it is far too early to expect evidence of the effect of sanctions. I say to the House, give this action some time, let this embargo continue, give a chance to Saddam Hussein to halt, if it even means for him to save his ugly face, and let us try to find a peaceful solution.
No one wants a war. No man, woman, child, mother, father, sister, brother-the whole family constellation whether close or far apart-have the right to express themselves to their country, would ever want to choose war. War is a very devastating and miserable experience.
We do not live in a perfect world. No one wants famine either, but look at what is going on once again in Ethiopia, in the Sudan, and in other parts of the world. Hunger and famine exist in this not so perfect world.
No one wants human rights to be violated, but look at what just happened within our television memory of a day in Lithuania. Human rights are being violated. We have already forgotten what happened in China in Tiananmen Square. But in this imperfect world of ours, these things happen. It does not mean we have to accept them. It does not mean we do not speak out against them, but we cannot be constantly up in arms. We have
January 15, 1991

to find a new world order in which hopefully, please God, we will be in a position to move forward with some other kinds of answers. No one wants to see military force used here but it may well have to be. The sounds of war can be heard all around us. Hospitals right here in Ottawa have been put on alert. All of this is part and parcel of this very imperfect world in which we find ourselves.
Though imperfect, there has been some improvement since the last world war. There has been some improvement since the time of the League of Nations. We now have before us the United Nations where for the first time we are seeing the use of a collective action, the sense of a collective role and responsibility and that gives me some modicum of comfort, not total comfort, in this imperfect world.
I recognize that circumstances are different today. We have, as I have said, the support of most of the world's countries. We do have 30 countries out there in the gulf working together to apply those sanctions, to set that embargo in place and to maintain it. This is not World War II or just prior to it with the disintegration of the League of Nations when Lester B. Pearson decried the abandonment of economic sanctions as a lever to effect change.
But there is a sense of history here too. There is a sense that there are lessons to be learned. I hope that those lessons were learned and those economic sanctions will help.
I have to put into the hopper very serious concerns which are best expressed in a letter I received among the many faxes and phone calls I have received. I want to read excerpts of this into the record. It reads:
Dear Sheila:
I recall as a young boy, standing on a Saturday afternoon near the Rhine Bridge in Cologne, watching units of the Reichswehr marching across the Rhine River in defiance of the Versailles Treaty. That was the beginning of the West's subservience to Hitler, to be followed by the anschluss of Austria, the takeover of Czechoslovakia, the unprovoked attack on Poland and, subsequently, the Second World War with its loss of 25 million lives, including one-third of the world's Jewish population. I was witness to all this history, and will never forget it.
Saddam Hussein's rape of Kuwait and his arrogance and bloodthirsty assault on world peace is a striking shocking parallel of past history.
Government Orders
His hypocritical effort to manoeuvre the world into the issue of linkage with the Palestinian problem is, unfortunately, being bought by so many in the west and, naturally, in Mohammedan countries.
It is very evident that nothing seems to move Saddam Hussein to back down on his position. The likelihood of the coalition holding against him long enough to have sanctions work would appear very slim.
I hope, Sheila, that this lesson of history will be on your mind in tomorrow's debate on the gulf situation.
Yours truly,
Kurt Rothchild
I understand Kurt Rothchild and I understand the millions and millions of Canadians who have lived through this horror, who lived through the Holocaust and for whom this must be a very difficult moment.
But there were no sanctions then. I would hope that in supplying sanctions, we are not giving in and we are not giving up on the United Nations and on its resolutions. It is a matter of timing. I should say we do respect the United Nations. We adhere to the United Nations' principles, and we do respect the charter.
If we are on the brink of war, we can surely admit that mistakes were made along the road that got us here. Those mistakes brought us too quickly, to the brink of a conflict nobody desires. Those mistakes were real. They may very well have forced the hand of the United Nations coalition into the pending battle.
Of course, the first and most enormous mistake was Saddam Hussein's aggression in the first place. But were sanctions given enough time? I do not think so. Was adequate time given to search for peaceful resolutions while avoiding linkage with other issues? I do not think so.
With respect to Israel, as we look at the Middle East where the world's eyes are now focused, we see a region which has known more war than peace in recent times. My eyes, both as a Canadian and as a Jew, are also drawn to Israel. Naturally, Canada is a good friend of Israel. It, too, is watching Iraq's actions very closely. Israel has clear and definite security interests, but Israel has not sought to confront Iraq, nor attempted to enter the present crisis in the Gulf. Israel does not want war. Israel wants to see this aggression peacefully resolved as do we here in the House and as do all Canadians.
We are, however, aware of Iraq's stated intention to attack Israel if war breaks out. This kind of action would be unacceptable to Canada and Canadians. We share in the conviction of Israel's right to defend itself if at-

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
tacked. It is the same right we maintain here in Canada. We also reject any linkage of Iraq's aggression to other situations in the Middle East.
We all truly regret the way events seem to be propelling themselves at this hour in the Persian Gulf. I fear, as do so many Canadians, that we are on the threshold of a war that nobody wants.
Finally, it is with sincere regret that we face the prospect of warfare in the Persian Gulf. I do sincerely wish that sanctions had had their desired effect before this time. I hope to God it is not too late. I hope the United Nations coalition will hold and will work.
All Canadians wish that we were not facing conflict, but most of all I wish that Saddam Hussein had listened to the world after these many months and had realized that his aggression would not be allowed to stand.
Let us not forget that, if war should come it comes chiefly from the intransigence of Saddam Hussein and his steadfast refusal to heed world opinion and retreat from Kuwait, and from his brutal assault on a small, unsuspecting neighbour. This small, unsuspecting neighbour-which was not much of a democratic state, itself- will, I hope, be returned to a life that would include a democratic life-style. I would hope that the untold atrocities of this man and his ilk will not be forgotten. I would hope that, where there is no sign of remorse and regret, the world will move to act.
There are no winners in a war. This one is just too horrible to contemplate. That being said, there is no question that, at a given point, one has to say that enough is enough. Circumstances, at a given point in to time, will not allow us to contemplate idly such injustice without action and we should certainly not expect that Kuwait should be the Czechoslovakia of 1991.
At this moment, I share with Canadians their concern and apprehension in these hours before the UN deadline. Instinctively, Canadians are all opposed to war. Intuitively, Canadians are peaceful people. Our frustration in this hour is real, the discouragement is genuine, and the concern is certainly grave. Along with all Canadians, I wish that this entire affair had not occurred, but we cannot change that. Short of that, Canadians, being a peaceful people, hope and pray that peace is swiftly returned to the Persian Gulf.
It seems insane that war should be the only solution should this world enter into the unknown-a nuclear holocaust, bacterial warfare, or chemical warfare. As a representative of thousands and thousands constituents who have suffered at the hands of Stalin in the Second World War, I am in a position to understand that intense desire for justice, a sense of desire for revenge, and the desire to go to war. People cannot stand the thought of the rape and pillage on the one hand and letting those who ravage go free on the other. Yet, I just cannot counsel war as the first option at this moment.
If the initial United Nations resolution and its evaluation has contained Hussein in his ill-conceived aspirations for leadership and power, perhaps just a little more time will allow the United Nations to verify how the sanctions are working and will allow Hussein to back off. It is the moral duty, however, of the international community to stop him. The question is, how soon if he still does not budge?
I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if ever we have to revert to a more aggressive action it is because there is no other way. God willing, let there be no war.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the member a couple of questions relative to her comments on linkage. Linkage has to be addressed in the sense of history and I address this to my colleague with some thought of history.
Currently, Syria has said as one of the members of the United Nations group that, should Iraq attack Israel and Israel responds in defence, Syria will walk out of the alliance. Is that the kind of Canadian partner that we are talking about when we hear the Prime Minister talk about Amnesty International?
The President of Egypt said in a recent interview that, should the Israelis respond to an unprovoked attack by Saddam Hussein, he too would consider leaving the alliance, although after that interview was published he softened his position.
They speak of linkage. They have already made linkage conditions to part of what we are playing. Let us understand that nobody's hands are clean in this whole area. They have put conditions on their partnership that this government has not talked about, nor has the United States. Where does that leave Israel? It is a good question to contemplate.

The other thing the hon. member addressed which I thought was appropriate in the letter was a question of comparing this to the anschluss. That has not been the line that has been attempted to be sold as an argument against Saddam Hussein. I make it clear that I hold no grief for that tyrant who has poisoned his own people with poison gas. But if we are going to talk in the terms of the anschluss and we are going to talk in terms of what the Prime Minister of this country said today about invoking Amnesty International's report-a correct accurate report on the brutality of Saddam Hussein's government's actions in Kuwait-let us understand where the host ground, Saudi Arabia, ranks when it comes to Amnesty International. My dear friends, nothing is pure, nothing is clean, and there is a linkage everywhere.
I would like her response to some of these partners and their linkage: Syria, as I have outlined; Egypt, as I have outlined; and now Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is a country where women are stoned to death for adultery. It is a country where a thief is punished by having his hand amputated. Women cannot drive cars or swim in the same pool as men. Bibles are forbidden and no religion, save Islam, is allowed. I wish the Prime Minister were here to listen to this because he is the one who invoked Amnesty International. Amnesty International reported that last year 111 people were executed, 16 of them political prisoners, and they had their heads chopped off. I do not advocate that for dealing with politics here. But when talking about linkage, remember we are linking ourselves with Saudi Arabia and, by the Prime Minister's criteria of Amnesty International, one cannot use it for one country and not another. Amnesty International does not have very much nice to say about Saudi Arabia.
There is linkage already defined by some of the partners, for example, Syria and Egypt. There is a request for Israel to shut up when a rocket comes over there and not respond. Linkage? That is linkage by the tacit message from the United States to Israel. When we talk about linkage, let us understand that there is heck of a lot more involved than just linkage around a reasonable peace treaty.
On the basis of that record and that linkage, not sparked by Saddam Hussein's actions, would it not be
Government Orders
appropriate that the least we could expect is a regional conference in that area to deal honestly and in an up front way with every single one of the problems, rather than just going hell bent for leather to get into a war without understanding the consequences of the linkage we have already subscribed to?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would answer my hon. colleague that he has not missed the obvious, I am sure.
The linkage between Israel and its' responsibilities in this for part of the problems, as they have been expressed by Saddam Hussein, has absolutely nothing to do with Hussein's violent aggression against a colleague, against a country that supported him both financially and morally, a country for which he was a co-operative part of that whole Arab constellation of countries. He walked in and raped his neighbour. The difference is that Israel was aggressed by all its neighbours, won an almost impossible war and tried to give that land back in exchange for peace and no peace conference was forthcoming by the Arabs.
Do not make the inaccurate and incorrect linkage with that in that respect. Yes, Lebanon has been aggressed by Syria and Israel got accused of certain things. No one is absolutely blameless in any of that area.
With respect to the cultural practices in Islam and the cultural attitudes toward a lifestyle in the countries of that Arab world, I have no intention of asking or telling them how to change it. Its' own population should do that and it should be responsive to its' own population, to the women's movement in that area who no more want to walk around with those chadors and God knows what else. They want certain kinds of freedoms. I do not know to what extent they want freedom. I do not know how much, or how far, or what changes they want to make. They can be responsible for themselves. They are very intelligent. They are very capable.
The Arab people and the Muslim people are very intelligent and capable people if left without some of the power hungry idiot mongers out there, who are changing those people and their attitudes. Israel, Jews and Arabs lived as comfortable brothers and sisters together for generations. It is only in recent history that this is an aberration. It is because of the power hunger of then-leadership at this date.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
Please, let us talk about linkage perhaps, but not this kind of linkage at this time. Yes, there are many problems, but we cannot solve them all. The one we are discussing tonight-and it is almost the eleventh or the twelfth hour-is the question of Saddam Hussein and his rape of Kuwait. It is the impossible situation of the Kuwaiti people that has to be settled. We have to find ways to do that which do not put that whole conflagration into operation: nuclear holocaust, bacterial warfare, chemical warfare, and God knows what its impact will be on all of us.
We do have a moral responsibility. We have a responsibility as a people and Canada cannot walk away from it. We are not suggesting that we walk away from it. We are suggesting that we have to pick the proper time for Canada.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, this is an important opportunity in front of so many members here because I do not fundamentally disagree with what the hon. member is saying. She is pointing out the idealized goal. I am pointing out some of the inconsistencies of the current Canadian government's position. I think they have to be understood.
The Prime Minister is the one who invoked Amnesty International. I am the one who reminds the House that it was the Prime Minister who brought in Amnesty International as a touchstone for his definition of good works. One of our partners here does not stack up too well in good works.
The linkage I referred to is not the one that Saddam Hussein has defined. I agree with the hon. member completely that he is in no position to define anything. He is the aggressor. But some of our partners have defined linkage.
What I was bringing to the hon. member's attention is the linkage defined by Syria which is now one of our partners. Mr. Assad's linkage is that if Israel is attacked and responds, he will pull out of the partnership. What kind of partner it that? The same with President Mubarak of Egypt. Furthermore, these things do not happen in isolated arenas. Who was it that armed Iraq to the teeth? It was the Soviet Union, the United States, and France that armed Iraq.
I am just pointing out that there is linkage in other dimensions and I did not want that opportunity to pass without understanding that linkage has more to say than just one single definition, and I agree with the member.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that war makes very strange bedfellows. Of that, there is no question. I would say that the linkage has more to do with power and power hungry persons, and leadership of the Arab world. It is not with oil, and that is why perhaps one might see Syria talking out of both sides of its mouth. That is why I think that there may be that kind of linkage problem.
With respect to what the Prime Minister is doing, I have no intention of referring to the unpopular Prime Minister. I have much more interest in referring to the importance of Canadian's sons and daughters who are in this war and what they have to look forward to, and what kind of answers we as parliamentarians and their elected representatives have as a moral responsibility.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to participate in this very important debate.
I would like to begin by making some comments on the remarks by the hon. member for Mount Royal, which I thought were very articulate and very heartfelt. She articulated the issue very clearly and in a very straightforward way when she said: "There comes to be a point when enough is enough."
Really, the question is: When is that point? What is so vexing about the situation which faces us in the Middle East today is trying to determine when that point is.
As a member of the government, I must say that I cannot imagine an issue more difficult. It is one that has certainly occupied us and preoccupied us for some time now.
I think it is important perhaps to review why we are where we are. The key decision made by the countries of the world was a decision to prevent Iraq from any further aggression after it had occupied Kuwait. This required not simply the imposition of interdiction of shipping in the gulf. This was, in many ways, after the fact, but involved the landing of land forces in Saudi Arabia to prevent the further extension of Iraqi military occupation.
January 15, 1991

Once that was done, the international community was faced with the question of how to resolve the situation. It is extremely difficult because the situation is very unstable.
The member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca pointed out some of the difficulties in that area. There is an enormous amount of tension. Politics does make strange bedfellows, and sometimes it makes estranged bedfellows.
The coalition that has come together uniquely and for the first time in our history to deal with the situation in the Middle East is a very fragile one, and when trying to identify the appropriate moment in history to decide that sanctions are not going to be effective and that it is appropriate to take additional steps to enforce the desire of the world to have order, and to deter aggression.
It is important to recognize that it is a very unstable situation. The cost of not acting is very high. Therefore, I think the actions of the United Nations made a great deal of sense when, after imposing sanctions, after countries of the world were prepared to go into Saudi Arabia to prevent further expansion of Iraq, the countries of the United Nations through the Security Council set a deadline because the situation was very clear. Either Iraq had an intention to abide by the resolutions of the Security Council, or it did not.
The problem with the analysis of sanctions is that there is an assumption there were sanctions in fact to intrude on Iraq's warmaking capability and that Iraq would withdraw from Kuwait. I think that is a highly questionable assumption.
On the contrary, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has pointed out that whatever the effect of sanctions are on Iraq, they have not been on its warmaking capability or on the strength of its military.
It is also naive to assume that were sanctions to begin to have that kind of effect and to begin to bite on the military capability of Iraq it would lead Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. The coalition that is in the Middle East now to deter aggression is unstable. There are many conflicting issues. The Middle East conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbours is only one of them.
Government Orders
The tension between the Arab Muslims who live there and the non-Arab Muslims who are there as part of foreign troops is also part of a very destabilizing difficult situation. Saddam Hussein has everything to gain by time because it enables him to pick his moment to try to destabilize the coalition. I can quite imagine what would happen if he began to feel that things were getting a little bit tight in terms of the interdiction of shipping, and it is a very loose set of sanctions. There certainly are back doors and very large holes in the sieve in terms of key military capability. It is not at all clear that such a situation would not in fact lead Saddam Hussein to take a desperate military act in the hopes of destabilizing the coalition and making it impossible for it to act. The longer the international coalition waits, the more difficult it is to act with cohesion because the more its internal inconsistencies will come into play.
We have a very rare and fragile situation there. It is a situation that has been made possible by a reduction in tensions in the cold war. I was very touched by the member for Mount Royal's reading of the letter from someone who had witnessed the events before World War II. It is appropriate not to overdraw historical analogies, but it is also important to learn the lessons of history.
Will we stop and think that one of the reasons the United Nations has been unable to function as an effective deterrent to aggression for the last 45 years is because of the legacy of the cold war? That legacy of the cold war is a legacy whereby tens and tens of millions of people have lived under a dictatorship and under oppression in the countries of eastern Europe.
I was bom in 1947 right after the war; I am 43. There are people my age who have never known freedom and the reason they have lived under those situations is a direct result of the inability of the international community to deter aggression in the late 1930s.
We talk about the cost of not deterring aggression. It is a cost that is worn often by generation after generation. It is that direct cost of failing to deter aggression in the late 1930s which subsequently rendered as a result of the post-war regime whereby, as a result of World War II, the highly undemocratic Soviet Union was able to take over much of eastern Europe, countries which had been democratic prior to the war.

Government Orders
It has taken my whole lifetime to change that. And in the course of my whole lifetime, the United Nations has not been capable of acting as its founders wanted because of the tensions of the cold war.
We are talking about a very complex situation and it is very difficult to try to read what will happen. None of us has a crystal ball, but it is important to recognize that we have a rare opportunity to establish a principle here. It is not precipitous of the United Nations to want to back up sanctions with force because it is a very realistic assessment of what is going to happen in the Middle East. If Saddam Hussein does not respect the ultimatum and the deadline of the United Nations by today, he is not going to respect it next month or the month after. In fact, the capability of deterring him and getting him out of Kuwait diminishes rather than increases because the capacity of the coalition to act decreases.
My intention this evening was not so much to address those particular issues, although I was very moved by the presentation of the member for Mount Royal and wanted to address some of those concerns because I have been part of the process of trying to deliberate this vexing and troubling issue.
As Minister of Justice I do want to talk a little bit about the legal framework in which the government has conducted its dealing with this particular issue. There are some important issues in terms of the law and the Constitution that should perhaps be put on the record.
The rule of law is the guiding principle of our domestic constitutional system and the ultimate reason for our longstanding commitment to the United Nations system. The issue today is the rule of law in international affairs and whether it can be made a reality and not just a pious hope.
We Canadians have special reasons to understand the crucial importance of the rule of law. It is the foundation of our democracy and of our fundamental rights and freedoms found in our Charter. Respect for the law has always been fundamental to what makes this country a safe and peaceful place to live. Canadians know that when the law is broken, it is society that is harmed not just the victim.
So, too, in the world at large. All countries, and all peoples are put at risk when the strong invade the weak. Fundamental values are put at risk. The world must stand by its principles and protect the rule of law as the basis for future hope for all mankind. Canadians would expect no less if we were the victims.
It is against this background that I would like to speak of the legal aspects of this crisis, both in Canadian and international law, and talk of the respective roles of the government, Parliament, and the United Nations.

Under Canadian law, the use of military force by Canada on its own initiative or as part of the United Nations collective security system has always been the prerogative of the Crown, as is the authority to sign treaties and to recognize or refuse to recognize foreign states. That is at the heart of the conduct of external relations. As recently as 1981, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the power to declare war was part of the prerogative of the Crown. Our constitutional law experts share this opinion. An enforceable measure authorized by the UN is certainly a military intervention that does not go beyond the limits of traditional prerogative.
Section 31 of the National Defence Act deals with the situation of armed forces personnel. It provides that the Governor in Council may place the Canadian forces on active service in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations charter.

The House will recall that an Order in Council was passed on September 15, 1990 under this provision, placing the Canadian component of the multinational military coalition on active service. This measure was stated to apply not only to the implementation of United Nations measures that had then been passed. It also referred to participation in "such other actions as may be appropriate under the charter of the United Nations".

The government made sure that the House was aware of all the events that have occurred since the beginning of the crisis. We have done so out of a deep respect for the parliamentary system, democracy and the principle that a responsible govemement must account to the House for all the important decisions it makes. Today, we

Government Orders
put this question before the House for a third time because the situation is so critical that it is appropriate for the House to consider it.

Hon. members will no doubt recall the resolution passed on October 23 which condemned the Iraqi invasion, affirmed support for Canadian actions, and contained an undertaking on the part of the government to present a further resolution in the event of an outbreak of hostilities.
This was followed by a resolution of November 29 which supported the efforts of the UN under the original resolution and subsequent UN resolutions, including resolution 678. Notwithstanding that there has not been an outbreak of hostilities, the government has ensured that the House has been recalled to consider this motion as the expiry of the UN deadline draws near.
The measures the government has taken in bringing developments before Parliament go beyond what happened in the case of the Korean conflict. There Parliament was indeed informed and given an opportunity to debate the issue, but it was after the fact. Here the government has consistently brought matters to the House in a timely way.

Some people argue that the terms of the motion are too vague. Those people forget that we want essentially to support the UN and the action it has taken. We are not alone in this. We are participating in a collective effort with many other countries. The terms of the motion must not be too strict. They must provide for enough flexibility to be able to react to the events as they occur in the context of the UN.
Until now I have spoken only of the various initiatives Canada has taken and of the constitutional framework in which they have been taken. Allow me to give an overview of the decisions that were made by the UN, the order in which they were made, and the principles of the UN charter on which they are based.

In the exercise of its responsibilities under the United Nations charter to maintain or restore international peace and security, the Security Council adopted resolutions under chapter VII of the charter. The first resolution, resolution 660 of August 2, 1990, determined that there was a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2,1990. It condemned the invasion, demanded immediate withdrawal by Iraq, and called upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences.
Four days later, on August 6, in resolution 661, the Security Council, deeply concerned that resolution 660 had not been implemented and noting that the legitimate Government of Kuwait had expressed its readiness to comply with resolution 660, decided to impose economic sanctions under chapter VII of the charter.
According to the other resolutions, the Security Council declared legally invalid the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq. It asked Iraq to facilitate the immediate departure of third party nationals from Iraq or Kuwait, condemned the Iraqi agression against diplomats and diplomatic premises, and asks member states which had naval forces in the region at that time to take all necessary and justified measures under the circumstances to intercept ships and enforce the economic sanctions.

Finally, by resolution 678 of November 29, 1990, the Security Council, recalling and reaffirming its 11 resolutions relating to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of international peace and security, gave Iraq until the end of January 15, 1991 to comply fully with resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions requiring Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Failing this, member states are authorized to use all necessary means to implement those resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area. Furthermore, resolution 678 requested all states to provide support for these actions.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
The overriding principle of the United Nations is the maintenance of international peace and security through collective action. The most fundamental principle of the charter is article 2, paragraph 4, which prohibits the use of force in international relations, especially aggression against the territorial integrity of any state.
Article 2, paragraph 5, requires all the members of the United Nations to render assistance to the organization in actions which it undertakes under its authority.
Article 25 stipulates that the members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. The House approved the charter and Canada's membership in the United Nations with all the obligations that entails by a motion passed on October 19, 1945, shortly after the birth of the new organization.
What this House is discussing today is no more and no less than the fulfilment of its obligations under international law and specifically under the charter of the United Nations to which Canada has committed its full support.
Prime Minister St. Laurent said in this House in 1950 in connection with the Korean action: "the whole prestige of the United Nations has been committed. It is not only the fate of South Korea that hangs in the balance. It is the fate of the United Nations, the fate of that organization upon which the hope of peace in the years ahead now rests."
To put it simply, this is an exercise in law enforcement. It is a repudiation of those such as Saddam Hussein who attempt to take the law into their own hands in an effort at the collective enforcement of the most fundamental principles of international law.

In brief, the authority and the legal responsibility really exist. Everybody knows that superpower rivalries have always harmed the general objectives of the United Nations charter. The first hopes were dashed, but the situation has evolved and new opportunities exist. The fundamental principle of non agression on which rests the United Nations charter could not be fully applied unless members states agreed to honor their solemn commitment to collective security. We all must be ready
to defend our principles and to assure the security of innocent and law-abiding peoples.

Let me conclude by assuring this House that every step the Canadian government takes in this matter will be in strict conformity with both the Canadian Constitution and international law.
I would like to conclude by pointing out that I quoted Prime Minister St. Laurent speaking about the important implications of the Korean action and this country's participation in it. That was the last time that the United Nations was capable of acting in a concerted way to enforce international law. It happened because one of the countries that traditionally vetoed the motions of the Security Council which would have permitted that action happened to be absent from the Security Council on that day. The action in Korea was able to take place only because of the absence of a member of the Security Council.
It has been 41 years since the United Nations has been able to take concerted actions in the Security Council and to pass unanimous resolution upholding the rights of international law and upholding the action of United Nations against aggression. It should not be another 41 years before the United Nations can do that. It is a very important time in its history, and I strongly support Canada's participation in this action.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the hon. minister a very brief question.
Inasmuch as I have heard this type of speech on several times this evening, would she tell this House if it is her understanding that a positive response to the resolution means in fact that the government will engage in armed intervention without further consultation with Parliament?
I will accept a very brief answer; a yes or a no will do.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, our troops that are in the gulf now and have been there-


An hon. member:: They are not in armed conflict.


A. Kim Campbell: The troops that are in the gulf to fulfil their obligations under sanctions have always been in a position where they might have to engage in combat. They are vulnerable and, if they had been attacked, they would have had to respond.

What I have tried to point out is that the constitutional, legal authority to change that mandate, which has not been changed, is the royal prerogative. That decision has not yet been made and it is why this debate is taking place. I want to say that as a member of the government I have been very grateful for the insightful and thoughtful comments that have been made in this House today.
I have tried to hear as many of them as I can, either directly or on television, because it is a very difficult decision. The operating mandate of our forces has not changed. It is a misconception on the part of some Canadians that their being in the gulf now to enforce sanctions means that they would not possibly become involved in combat. That could have happened at any given time and they would of course have behaved appropriately.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the minister.
I preface my question by pointing out that the minister has made reference to the conflict in Korea some 41 years ago. The minister will know-and I am surprised that she did not draw it to the attention of the House- that the troops engaged in that particular conflict were of course under United Nations command. That is not the case with the troops that would be engaged in the conflict if, God forbid, war breaks out in this particular instance.
I want to draw to the minister's attention the fact- and I am sure she is aware of it-that she is, as I am, from Vancouver, British Columbia. The minister will know and will recall that on the weekend literally thousands of British Columbians gathered in the heart of her constituency in front of the art gallery-young people, teachers, war veterans and others-urging this government not to plunge Canada into a war, to give sanctions more time to work, and to give diplomacy more time to work.
The minister knows that today some 2,000 high school and university students felt so strongly on this question that they demonstrated, peacefully, outside the minister's office.
How can the minister defend the policy of this government which could conceivably, within a matter of literally hours at this point, involve Canadian troops in a military
Government Orders
offensive, no longer in the enforcement of sanctions but in a military offensive, in a war, the consequences of which would be absolutely devastating?
The minister has talked about what is happening to Kuwait now. Of course what is happening in Kuwait is very destructive, but what on earth would happen to Kuwait in the event of a war? It would mean the death of tens of thousands of Kuwaitis, the destruction of the environment, and the rise of Iran and Syria as the key players in that area.
Will the minister not recognize that the people of British Columbia, and the people of Vancouver Centre, are fundamentally opposed to our involvement in a war and want to give peace a chance? Will she not stand in her place, accept that, and speak out against the madness of war?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as the daughter of two war veterans I do not have to be told about the horrors of war. I am deeply concerned about it and I share the concern of many people in British Columbia. Equally, there are many people in British Columbia who have indicated their strong support for the stand the government is taking. The difficult judgment that has to be made is what is the more costly route. It is true that war is a frightening possibility.
I would be curious to know whether it is the position of the New Democratic Party that the countries of the world should not have gone in to stop Iraq from going into Saudi Arabia because that, in fact, was the key action which has involved the international community. It was the decision of the international community that Iraqi aggression had to be stopped, and it could only be stopped by force. Calling Saddam Hussein and asking him kindly not to go into Saudi Arabia was not terribly effective. Neither in fact, have been the implications of world statesmen who claim to know and to have had a good relationship with Saddam Hussein.
No one perhaps has a better moral claim to Saddam Hussein's ear than Perez de Cuellar, who was so instrumental in helping to disengage the war between Iraq and Iran. It is obviously one of the great defeats and tragedies of his career that he has been unable to encourage or to convince Saddam Hussein to step back.

Government Orders
Once the decision of the international community was made to stop that aggression, we had taken an irrevocable step, and the question is where do we go from there? I would suggest that in this case there is no ideal solution. Establishing the rule of law and establishing peace is sometimes messy. Those young people who demonstrated in my riding today, and the young people who demonstrate everywhere, do so because a lot of young Canadians and other people were prepared to pay a very significant price to deter aggression. Sometimes force has to be exerted.
It has been an agonizing few weeks for the Government of Canada in trying to make those judgments. We are of the view, as are most of the countries of the western industrialized world, that sanctions will not only not work but that they are imposing a terrible, terrible cost on the world's poor, that they are increasing the destabilization of the Middle East, and that the ultimatum presented by the nations of the United Nations was in fact a reasonable notice to Saddam Hussein that his aggression would not be tolerated, would not be sustained, and would not be condoned by the world.
I would like to know if it is in fact the policy of the New Democratic Party that the world should not have gone in to stop the expansion of Saddam Hussein. I can find nothing to recommend him as a world leader. I can find nothing to recommend him as a liberator of Kuwait or any other country. I think that the international community was quite right in going in to stop him.
What is being suggested is that somehow that action could be taken with no further implications and that is not the reality. The world community has to determine what is the best way to resolve this situation, not what is the perfect way, but in a very imperfect world and faced with a series of very unattractive options, what is the one way that has the best chance of defending and supporting the principles of international order?


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, we are debating government motion No. 27 which states "that this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait". The government members who are speaking are not addressing the intent of the motion, especially the ministers. The minister did not answer the questions posed by the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence. I ask her again; What does the government hope to achieve by having this motion passed in this House?
What powers, what authority, what flexibility will this motion give the government that it does not have now?
My second question is, this, and I want it on record; will the minister support the Liberal amendment which adds to the motion of the government "through the continued use of economic sanctions such support to exclude offensive military action by Canada at this time"? The key words are "at this time". We are saying that we may support military action in the future, but not at this time. Could she be very specific in her answer, and not beat around the bush?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, constitutionally in Canada, the resolution of this House does not change the power or the Crown prerogative to make the key decisions as to what the mandate of our forces will be and what we will do. This is a motion to express the will of the House, but it is not within the power of this House to make those decisions with respect to the disposition of military forces.
The point I made was that there are two constitutional principles here. One is where the power resides to make those decisions. I think members can understand why it is the prerogative of the Crown because of the kinds of decisions and the speed with which decisions have to be made.
There is also a constitutional provision called ministerial responsibility, the principle of responsible government, whereby the government, having exercised its prerogatives and its powers, nonetheless answers to those and is accountable for them to the House.
That is the purpose of this debate. It is a very serious purpose, because there are many decisions yet to be made. I want to tell the hon. member that the members of the government are listening very seriously to the concerns and views that are being expressed by all members of this House. It is a very important time and I think all of us agree that many of the points raised, for example, by the hon. member for the Yukon, the leader of the NDP, were very well expressed today.
These are questions we have been wrestling with and it was very appropriate for those questions to be put by the hon. member so that the ministers of the Crown could respond to them. What we have tried to do, in keeping with our particular responsibilities, is to put before the House the reasons and the rationale for the government's position.

As Minister of Justice, I wanted to clarify some of the underlying legal principles which guide us and I took the opportunity to talk about some of the other aspects as well.
This is a very important debate. It does not rewrite the Constitution, but it is part of the very important constitutional principle of responsible government whereby government exercises its prerogatives but in consultation with, accountable to, and answerable to Parliament.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice may have inadvertently given away the secret, if you like, of the reality that the government is asking us to accept. In citing the consensus out of which the government is operating, she referred finally, not only or specifically, to the United Nations, but to the western industrialized world, and the conclusions that world has drawn about what should be done in the Middle East with respect to the Iraqi invasion and annexation of Kuwait which we all condemn but on which we are going to disagree with each other tonight about how we deal with that invasion and annexation.
I say that I hope that in my comments this evening that I might in some way or another faithfully reflect what I believe to be the legitimate ambiguity and agonizing that Canadians of all walks of life have been going through, particularly in the last week as they saw January 15 approaching. This is a feeling I think that can best be described as having that sense of responsibility that Canadians have toward the world community and toward the maintenance of international law and order, having that sense of responsibility called upon by the government, feeling the tug of that training and of that ethic which is a good ethic, but nevertheless feeling that somehow they are being led down the garden path, that somehow their principles are being exploited, that they are being taken advantage of, and that their beliefs are being applied in a context which does not really deserve the full application of that responsibility.
I want to begin with some of the things that the Secretary of State for External Affairs said because I had something to do with the Secretary of State for External
Government Orders
Affairs when I was the external affairs critic for my party in the summer when the Iraqi invasion first occurred.
The speech of the minister was at times a very eloquent appeal for unity. At other times, it descended into what I would regard as partisan politics and caricaturing of opposing arguments. But I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he was interested in building a Canadian consensus about how Canada ought to respond to this particular event, why he did not do that on August 2. Why did Canadians, and particularly Canadian members of Parliament, have to hear about the decision to send Canadian ships to the gulf from the Secretary of State for External Affairs coming out of a NATO foreign ministers' meeting?
Why could that decision not have been made, if indeed that was the decision to be made, after consultation with Canadian members of Parliament, with the Canadian external affairs committee, with his counterparts in the House of Commons, or with anybody here in Canada who had a political responsibility? That did not happen.
I met with the Secretary of State for External Affairs early that week after the invasion and had a fairly long conversation with him. I had no inkling. No impression was given whatsoever, in fact quite the contrary, that Canada by the end of the week would be sending ships to the gulf.
I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that to come to us now and ask us for uncritical support at the conclusion of a process that time and time again he bungled by not taking Canadian parliamentarians seriously is the height of nerve. It is the height of nerve also when the fact is considered that time after time Parliament was asked to approve things after the fact, somewhat in the way the UN was constantly asked to approve things after decisions had already been taken in Washington or in Ottawa.
The Minister of Justice referred to the need to deter an invasion of Saudi Arabia. That was happening in the context of the bilateral relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Announcing in August that Canadian ships would be sent to the gulf and be there by

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
the end of September was hardly the thing that deterred Saddam Hussein from continuing on to invade Saudi Arabia.
The ships went on, as you know, Mr. Speaker, to become part of the UN legitimized enforcement of sanctions, but that again was after the fact. The ships were on their way and the government was saved from the embarrassment of having to make that decision and having it stand as a decision taken outside the legitimacy of the UN by the fact that the resolution was passed after it had sent the ships.
All the way along, the Secretary of State of External Affairs and the Prime Minister who now come to us with very high flown rhetoric about the United Nations persisted in doing things before the UN had legitimized them and even indicated on occasion that they were willing to go all the way with Washington whether or not there was UN approval of any military action in Iraq to get Iraq out of Kuwait. It rings just a little hollow for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to get up and talk the way he has to us about his great respect for the United Nations.
On the question of sanctions, I was very distressed to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs go on the way he did caricaturing the argument, the debate, which we are having in this House as an argument between those who simply want to talk and wait, and those on the government side who want to act. We maintain that sanctions are a form of action.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Sanctions permitted to work are indeed the kind of action that is required and not an easy action. There are many legitimate worries-I accept that- about whether or not the multinational sanction effort would hold together. There are legitimate worries, but a much tougher course of action and a lovely precedent that could have been set if we had worked together as a world to say: "We are not going to solve our problems by war, but by God, we are going to solve them through the determined application of economic sanctions until such time as every country in the world knows it cannot step out of line or it will meet this same kind of determined isolation."
That is the precedent that we would have liked to seen set in this new post-cold war order that everybody is talking about so much. Not a precedent that the first time a crisis arises that we say: "Well, we tried sanctions for a couple of months. It didn't work. Let's get down to the business of war." It is caricaturing sanctions as talk, as waiting, as non-action.
It is a funny thing to hear from a minister of external affairs who has spent his entire career as the Secretary of State for External Affairs going around imploring people to bring about voluntary-not mandatory or comprehensive, but voluntary-sanctions against South Africa, and to give those sanctions time because they are working.
Indeed, the minister claims that they have worked and has said to the ANC and others: "No violence. Let sanctions work, and work and work." Now, we cannot even wait three months or six months, whatever the case may be, in order to try to solve what is obviously a very difficult problem without bringing on the conflagration that may indeed be brought on in less than three hours from now.
It is very difficult indeed for us and, I think, for a great many other Canadians to listen to this debasement of the sanction alternative, something which the minister himself has been such a great fan of with respect to South Africa.
The Minister of Justice, with respect to other things that have been said by the government today, and the Prime Minister and others, liked to make much of the analogy with the 1930s. I do not accept that this is analogous to the 1930s. I think we are in a new situation and I want to say more about that in a little while.
But the one thing I would say to the Minister of Justice about the 1930s, the one thing that is similar, is that in the 1930s the western industrialized democratic world did not do anything to help democratic Spain when it was under attack by fascism. Instead, it made money off the war effort and finally had to deal with the monster that it had created through its inaction.
If the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of External Affairs were to get up and say that that is a parallel with the 1930s that they see in their own actions with respect to Iraq and the arms trade there and the way in which we have created these monsters in the Middle East through our own participation in the arms trade, then maybe they would have a little more credibility when they stand up and ask us to accept their arguments.
January 15, 1991


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the government has said a lot about the United Nations. Ever since the response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, people have been pointing out the selectivity of the international outrage with respect to it. Everyone has their favourite previous event with which they want to contrast the outrage of the international community this time with the acquiescence of the international community in previous events, whether it be the Chinese invasion of Tibet, the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, or whatever the case may be.
All these things are helpful in so far as they point out the layer upon layer of hypocrisy that attends international affairs. But I agree with the government that we cannot achieve anything by simply telling old stories and pointing fingers at old culprits. We are in a new situation.
The United Nations post-1989, post cold war, post Berlin Wall coming down, is indeed a new United Nations. It is not fair to compare what the United Nations did not do in the past with what the United Nations may be doing now because we are in an entirely new situation. The question becomes not: "Why didn't the UN do this before?" That just goes to show how hypocritical and selective they are here now. The question becomes: "What is the appropriate action to take now in this new context?"
I will tell you what my greatest fear is for this new United Nations. It relates to the comment made by the Minister of Justice when she spoke about the western industrialized world. My greatest fear for this new United Nations is that it may go from a United Nations which was paralysed by the cold war and which could not do anything to a United Nations which, now that the north-north conflict is over-the north-north conflict that we called the east-west conflict-that is an opportunity for that new, united, or growing more united, north to turn its attention to its own collective self-interest in a way that will set the industrialized north increasingly against the south, increasingly against the Third World.
Government Orders
If we put aside the character of Saddam Hussein and all the evil things that he has done in Iraq and Kuwait, it is not impossible to see him as symbolic of a Third World reality that is saying to the western industrialized world: "We don't want to have the world run by the club that Canada belongs to any more. We want the club to be widened. We want more decisions to be made, for example, at international peace conferences to deal with the Middle East and in other international fora. We do not accept that the western industrialized world has any more the right to presume that its interests are what can compel the world to go to war."
That is the nagging doubt that I have about this new world order about which I had a great many hopes not just so long ago.
What we are seeing here, for all its warts on both sides, is a foreshadowing of a world increasingly divided between the haves and the have-nots. Saddam Hussein is a have-not with a significant army. This country is not part of the ruling club, if you like, and has set out on a path which I reject.
But I think there has to be a form of negotiation. There has to be a form of taking into account these realities that I am pointing to and war will not be the answer. War will only lead to the creation of new problems, new Saddam Hussein's, and new brutal regimes that arise out of the ashes, certainly not democratic regimes. That is one of the things that the government does not seem to be taking into account.
I say out of the ashes, and I know others will speak about this, but we also need to take into account the ecological dimension of this war. This may be indeed the same kind of war that we refused to fight in Europe for the last 45 years because the consequences were too terrible to contemplate. They were worse than the problem that the war was intended to solve. When we take into account the ecological dimension of this war, it may indeed be that we are faced with that same kind of very difficult choice. The choice that we have made in the New Democratic Party is that we do not want Canada to be part of initiating any such conflict.
The government says that the credibility of the United Nations is on the line, but it is a credibility cornered by the actions of the U.S. administration in sending so many troops to the Gulf, the amount of troops and resources that could only have been sent with the idea that there was going to be an invasion of Kuwait and Iraq, regardless of whether or not there was any UN acceptance of that.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
We now find ourselves in a position that we are put in, not by the UN, but by the Bush administration. It went out on a limb, so to speak, and now wants the UN and all of us to save it by saying: "Yes, you gambled. You put all those troops in there. Now you don't know what to do with them. And now you want our backing in order to follow through with what you think is the only course of action left to you that will save your face." That is, Mr. Bush's face.
We need to get over this world in which it becomes so easy to caricature nations and leaders according to whether or not they serve our interests. I am tired of a world in which one day somebody is a good guy, the next day he is a bad guy, and the next day he is a good guy again. It all depends on whether or not he is doing what Washington, generally speaking, wants him to do. We need to get over that and we need to do that by demonstrating in this case that we are committed to peaceful solutions to very difficult problems.
With that in mind, I would like to move an amendment to the amendment. There has been a lot of negotiation about this amendment, as you might have guessed, Mr. Speaker, as to what might be regarded as in order, and as to what might not be regarded as in order. Therefore, I move:
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after
the word "sanctions" and substituting the following:
"such support to exclude the involvement by Canada in a military attack on Iraq or Iraqi forces in Kuwait and to encompass diplomatic initiatives, including settlement of border and other disputes, through UN mediation or the International Court of Justice, the promotion of democratization throughout the region, the establishment of a mechanism to reduce the arms trade and to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, and the convening of an international peace conference to discuss all outstanding Middle East issues.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair will take into consideration the hon. member for Winnipeg Trans-cona's motion, even though it has some prima facie reservations about the acceptability of such a motion. In any event, the Chair will certainly be in a position to
come up with a final ruling about the acceptability of the amendment to the amendment.
Questions and comments. I recognize the hon. member for Portneuf.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Winnipeg Transcona. He said that Canada should not get involved in any violent action in the Middle East at the present time. I can understand that. He says that on the contrary, we should attempt to negotiate new alternatives to avoid any possible confrontation now that we are at three hours, or rather two hours and half now, from the deadline to see what will happen or what Mr. Hussein might decide at the other end of the phone line.
Nevertheless, I would like my colleague to explain to me why Canada should not participate in such action since, for the last 45 years, we have made every effort to get the two superpowers to recognize that there are, on this place called Earth, middle powers of which Canada, England, France and Australia are part. Those middle powers, now together in the Middle East, are saying to Mr. Hussein that it is time to get with it. We have just ended 45 years of cold war. No more wars. After 167 days, a dozen resolutions from the United Nations and a near refusal to meet with the Secretary General, Perez de Cuellar, we are told again tonight: "Be patient; give sanctions time to have an effect if you want things to come about."
In the meantime, I want to recall to my colleague that people have been suffering steadily for 168 days in the Middle East. And Mr. Hussein doesn't give any sign, none at all, that he intends to go back home and to respect the fundamental international law that we want to enforce as of now.
I would like my collegue to answer the question I just asked him, and to throw some light on the points I raised.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. There are two things I would like to say. He referred to the last 45 years and said that we have just come out of a cold war and really do not appreciate the

fact that this peace is now being upset by the situation in Iraq and Kuwait. I can relate to that. I am not very happy about it either.
But let us take into account, as I said before, that there was a time stretching over 40 years when there was a war that we were not willing to fight for the liberation of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, or Albania, because the consequences of that war were too horrible to contemplate.
What we are saying is that the consequences of this war may indeed be too horrible to contemplate. The difference is that those missiles are not pointed at us this time. Are we simply saying that we are willing to contemplate horrible wars as long as they do not affect us directly? If the horror of a war is something which has to be taken into account when we decide whether or not to enter into a state of war then I ask the hon. member to consider that these people whose suffering he is concerned about-and I believe him when he says that- may indeed suffer ten times more as a result of any war that might be initiated in that area that led to nuclear explosions or chemical warfare, or even the devastating effects of conventional weapons as they have come to be.
While I am on that theme of suffering which the member raises, let me say that the concern the government claims it has about the suffering of the Third World as a result of high oil prices really strains credibility. It especially strains credibility when you realize that we had to listen to this time and time again coming from the Secretary of State for External Affairs who has been responsible for two years of decrease in Canada's foreign aid, who is responsible for Canada's adherence to the structural adjustment programs of the IMF and the World Bank, a program which is starving children all around the world in order to save the banks, and when we know that the western industrialized world has never had any qualms about decreasing commodity prices in order to benefit its own economy and whether that plunged the economies of Zambia or Chile or other commodity-producing countries into absolute chaos, political instability and starvation.


Ross Harvey: That's okay. That's the market.
Government Orders


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is the market, Mr. Speaker. If people die because of the market, well that is just the invisible hand of Adam Smith working its wonderful way in the world. Really, Mr. Speaker, you just cannot believe some of the things you hear in this place.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to comment on the hon. member's reference to my own comments on the western industrialized world and the suggestion he made that somehow Saddam Hussein is striking a blow for those who do not believe that those who belong to the club that Canada belongs to should run the world.
I think it is important to correct the impression that he has left that somehow-and I certainly had no intention of leaving the impression-only the western industrialized world was interested in this. We have, as a result of our wealth and well-being, some capabilities to do things in the world that other countries do not have, but I would point out that there are 31 countries in the gulf supporting the sanctions against Iraq and that those countries that are most dedicated to beating Iraqi aggression back are not members of the western industrialized world. I mentioned those countries in a different context and whatever the hon. member wishes to say, it is true that poor Third World countries are suffering.
One of the problems of the history of the United Nations is that the General Assembly, where countries of the Third World have considerable clout as a result of their numbers, has never been able to be matched by the kind of will that required the approval of the Security Council because of the cold war. We are now in a position where those countries which have the wherewithal to back up the resolutions of the United Nations are now in a position to do so and I point out that Canada, although number 31 in world population, provides 25 per cent of United Nations resources. Therefore, when I talk about the countries of the western industrialized world, I am talking about the democracies and those countries which have the capability to put some clout into the UN's decisions.
There are many countries that want that action but are not in a position to do it. I think that it is a totally misleading perception to suggest that somehow those countries which support the United Nations in this effort

Government Orders
are not representative of all countries of the world. In fact, the Third World countries are very well represented. I do not have it handy but I have seen a chart which indicates all the countries which are involved in the gulf. It is an enormous range of countries, including many which have, probably for the first time in their history, had the opportunity to engage in a collective security operation.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I simply repeat my point that if the Minister of Justice, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and this government are as concerned as they say they are about the well-being of children and others in the Third World, then what they should decide to do is to take on the international economic order which dictates that children will die by the hundreds and thousands while we are debating this motion because we are not able to change the international economic system which dictates that they must die in order to satisfy certain sacred doctrines of the marketplace.


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I think I speak for all members of this House when I say that the act of aggression perpetrated by Iraq against Kuwait is particularly appalling and deplorable. It is even more disgraceful because of the fact that it is an aggression not only against a small country, but also against peace, against the creation of a world order, and against the dreams and peace efforts of all men and women all over the world.
The world is now plunged into a situation where on both sides of this House, whatever our views on the conduct of public and private affairs may be, people will have to take sides for or against war, for or against peace.
Once again, democracies are put to the test. Here is this dictator who is willing to give up everything, who does not believe in anything, who is willing to expose his people to the worst insults, tempting democracy and confronting it with its responsibilities with regard to peace and war. We know full well that peace and war are not alike, yet they are so close.
Tonight, as we speak, it is a very thin line that separates peace and war, but at the same time, there is a huge gap between those who are in favour of the war and those who think that we must give peace another chance. I do not think it is appropriate to judge anybody's intentions. It is easy to understand the impatience of some people as a result of the events that have occurred over the last few months. It is easy to understand the indignation felt by those who do not accept-and I think it is everybody-the way truth, justice, peace and democracy are being treated.
That being said, since we are parliamentarians, since people expect us to make decisions, we have to take one side or the other.
First, let me say, however ironic this may sound, that something positive has come out of this whole situation. During the recent events, we have seen the growth of the United Nations. A new world order has evolved from the show of solidarity for the United Nations, this important, powerful, and prestigious organization that can still look frail at times. Many people still remember today what happened to the League of Nations in the thirties, after World War I and the Treaty of Versailles.
We know how frail the United Nations is. We know it is our responsability to do everything we can, not only to preserve the UN, its prestige, its responsibilies, and its moral authority, but also to help it grow and strenghten. The UN passed 12 resolutions during recent months leading to this debate tonight. These resolutions were meant to further peace, to impose a world order to a government guilty of wrongdoing and to demand the undoing of an unacceptable move.
This government presented a motion purporting to ask this House to support the UN, as if those who are going to vote against it, such as myself were against the UN. Obviously, we are going to vote not against but for the UN. We know full well that Canada, established a reputation by upholding international authority. It does not make sense for Canada to have a diplomatic and foreign policies if they are not based on a strengthening of the works and foundations of the UN.
Respecting the UN is above all respecting its resolutions. We are presented with the UN resolution 678, the
January 15, 1991

last one adopted in November, and we are told that the Canadian Parliament should support this resolution, congratulate the UN and make it known that the UN is right when it wants this resolution to be implemented.
But this is not the meaning of today's debate. This debate is misleading in two ways, Mr. President, because the resolution presented to us is not the one which was passed. The UN resolution did not ask member states to make war. It said that after a given date, if Iraq had not completely withdrawn from Kuwait, these countries could take all necessary measures to ensure the Iraqi withdrawal. But, the government takes care to tell us that all necessary measures does not mean exclusively war measures and that they include the whole range of enforcement measures. Within that range, before war breaks out, there is room for diplomacy, for dialogue, all the initiatives that a peace-loving nation can imagine and Canada is such a nation.
Canada made its mark in the world. It illustrated its diplomacy with great men, such as Lester B. Pearson in particular. Many references were made to him today. It is true that Mr. Pearson enhanced Canada's stature in the world. It is true that Mr. Pearson, if he were with us today, would tell us: "Let us make a last effort for peace, and let us do it in the name of the United Nations."
The debate has been distorted in two ways, and I said that first because the meaning of the United Nations resolution has been altered. Second, the debate is not what it appears to be. The government is putting a virtuous resolution: Will you vote, yes or no, for virtue? We know very well that it is only appearance. What the government is telling us essentially or what it will want to be able to say after the resolution has been adopted is that the Parliament of Canada authorized the Government of Canada to make war. That is what it will say the day following a yes vote for the resolution.
This morning, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a speech that looked a lot more like a declaration of war or a speech made before entering the war than a speech by a Prime Minister or a head of government who must first seek the support of the citizens to try an ultimate attempt to save peace. I am sorry to say that I heard nothing in that speech which led us to believe that this government was seeking other alternatives to war and that, unfortunately, this govemmenthas resigned itself to war. And I think a government should never resign itself to war until war is declared.
Government Orders
In the debate today, reference was made, especially from the government side, and my colleague from the NDP also just made reference to the World War II, to those horrible years preceding World War II. During which the European democracies submitted themselves, in an appeasement policy, to the fierce appetites of a dictator who was bad-it is difficult to compare dictators as they are all terrible-but a very successful, Hitler. From one demand to another he swallowed whatever was given to him and then asked for more the next day. Tbday, we judge very severely the statesmen, and political leaders who agreed to deal with Hitler in order to maintain peace.
Indeed, we can make this reference to World War II, but we can also go back to World War I and other wars before that. One wrong after another. In the days preceding the declaration of World War, everybody said in retrospect: The political leaders knew nothing. They acted hastily, feverishly, in the turmoil. They agreed to a war psychosis. They missed opportunities to resolve the small emerging conflict They did not foresee the enormous proportions that the relatively small episodes would take and they are now seen as warmongers. That is why, during the period after World War I, people were reluctant to be hurried into a war and why those same people are now being accused of having been too pacifist and of being less than brave. We must not forget, that the generation in power in European democracies at the time had seen an entire generation of young people, the best and brightest of countries such as Germany, France and Great Britain, mowed down in muddy trenches. They did not want those millions who perished to be followed by more victims in the forties.
Imagine how lucky we are to be able to look back, although I suppose it is rather ironic. In any case, these are things we must consider. We cannot afford to let ourselves be influenced solely by comparisons with the acts of aggression committed during the Second World War, while ignoring what happened before then.
We are perhaps only a few hours away from a war whose duration we do not know and whose negative impact, the loss of lives, we cannot estimate- As I was saying, we are only hours away from the threat of war, and I am sure we would all have liked to be able to rally around the government and support the Canadian position. At a time when Canada is going through a very difficult period and Quebec is trying to find its way with a great deal of difficulty, at a time when Canada's and Quebec's children are about to meet their destiny in the defence of peace, we would have liked to be able to stand

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
together on the eve of these events. We in the Bloc Quebecois would have liked to be able to vote with the government. We would have liked to see the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party do so as well.
Unfortunately, that cannot be, because the government has decided to depart from Canada's noblest and most admirable tradition, that of seeking peace above all. Looking back over the events of the past months, we do not see a government that is above all concerned with peace. We see a government that is veiy concerned about Canada's place in the world and about the credibility of its relations with its traditional allies. A government that is very anxious not to be seen as the odd man out. But we are not yet seeing, the courage that should have shown and that we must still show for our great tradition of diplomacy to prevail, that tradition that made Canada loved and famous the world over as a peace-loving country. It is the country that people love and respect and that they want to stand among the concert of nations. What other nations are expecting from us now is the invention, the boldness, the spontaneity, the open-mindness and the courage of a Pearson to try to propose other solutions.
I am not saying that we will devise some inspired solutions. Many ideas are already been set forth everywhere. We know, for example, of the idea of a peace conference. Some may come up with others ideas, but right now, the best idea which has been proposed is that of a commitment to a peace conference. Maybe I am naive, but I find very strange that people are uncomfortable with the idea of a peace conference on the problems of the Middle East, including the question of Iraq, the Palestinian problem, and the conflict between Israel and the Arab nations. It seems strange to me, that there are two kinds of resolutions and declarations in the United Nations. There are, on the, one hand, declarations and resolutions which legitimaze the action that some countries are about to take, that is to break out in war, because it is important to respect the United Nations, and it is important to apply immediately the United Nations' declarations and resolutions. On the other
hand, other resolutions have been adopted on a regular basis for some 20 years by the United Nations, and again as recently, as last December 20. These resolutions are calling for the implementation, at last, of a negotiation process as applied to the global problems of the Middle East with a view to bringing about peace in the Middle-East, and these go unheeded.
We know that our Israeli friends do not want such a peace conference for the moment. We know that they need to be recognized. We know that they need to sit down with people who do not wish to destroy them. We love the Israelis and, for my part, I love Israel. All my life I have admired Israel. I have thought that this country was one of the greatest epics in contemporary history. All my life, I have seen in Israel destiny, which is confirmed today in this country and which is the one we know, a long and sound loyality to what this country is. Who can be against the loyalty of a nation who wants to assert itself, who wants to be itself? At the same time, I believe our friends also have a commitment to peace, and it is hard to imagine we can some day find a solution to what is happening in the Middle East if, once and for all, we do not cut the Gordian knot. The warring factions, all those who have a difference of opinion, must at last sit down at the same table face the problems, and look for solutions. It cannot be done, as long as we do not recognize the evidence of a problem.
Palestine is a powder keg, and we know full well that Iraq is a small part of this huge tapestry which is casting a pall over peace in that very important region of the world. We know as well that this is the way international and world-wide conflicts erupt. We can see all the ingredients which may combine into an international conflagration from which even the eastern and western worlds might not escape unscathed, quite the contrary.
This is an international obligation. You will say: "Yes, but this conference can be held later, some other day." Sure enough, that is unavoidable, one does not have to be a great prophet to realize that some day there will be a peace conference in the Middle East where all nations will be represented around the table in a successful quest for solutions. I am sure of that. But why should there be

so many people killed before that conference is convened? How many dead Palestinians and Arabs? How many casualties among Israeli men and women? How many casualties among the Americans, French and English? How many casualties among Canadians and Quebecers before people finally accept to sit around the same table, examine the problems, and look for solutions? This is called a peace conference. You might say: Yes, France tried today and yesterday but had to withdraw its proposal plan. Some might say: "Yes, but Canada agrees, because the Prime Minister wrote a letter to Mr. de Cuellar and there was a recent statement from the Security Council". We are all aware that these are nothing but tricks. A policy is something else.
The government claims that it has a policy. Nowhere in the resolution which defines the policy do I see the notion of a peace conference. It would be to the honour of Canada, even if it does not take place tomorrow, to write into a resolution that Canada wants a peace conference, that it wants it now, and not "in due course", a favorite expression among diplomats bankrupt of ideas. "In due course" is an expression which we find in all resolutions. Everybody is well aware that it vaguely means at some later point in time, if ever. We wish we had introduced such a resolution before the NDP did, but what matters is that it was done.
Let us, the Canadian Parliament, on the eve of looming catastrophic events, say in a resolution that we want a conference on peace, and Canada will then rise to the occasion. People will recognize that Canada had and still has the potential to show leadership. No matter who we are or however different our opinions, all of us in Canada, on the government side as well as on ours, want peace. Let us act so it will happen, Mr. Speaker.
I speak for myself and I think for the majority of the Bloc Quebecois. Well, it is a free vote and, as you know, we vote freely. We hope for and will support the Canadian government's final attempt for peace, and we will vote for the government's resolution, completed by the Liberal amendment and made better still by the amendment of the New Democratic Party.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for his
Government Orders
excellent speech, a speech that is clear and courageous. I also want to say that I agree completely with the comments of the hon. member on the importance of an international peace conference.
Indeed, when I was in Iraq, I met several people. In Jordan, I met with the Minister of External Affairs and, in Iraq, I met with Kuwaiti women, Iraqis, and Palestinians, including President Yasser Arafat. I did so because it seemed essential to me to underline the fact that Palestinians are also victims of what happened in Kuwait, and that Palestinians of the occupied territories are also victims. We have several victims. Yesterday, two PLO leaders were added to the list.
A conference was essential before August 2 and it is even more so today. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for pointing out this fact. I know very well that he was going to propose an amendment and I hope that his colleagues will support our amendement if it is found in order.
I also have a question for the member. The member knows very well that last Sunday, there was a very large demonstration in Montreal where more than 6,000 men, women, and children demonstrated for peace and against a catastrophic war. There were several groups. It was organised by the group Echec a la guerre and among participants, there were Artistes pour la paix, Lorraine Page of CEQ, Pierre Paquette of CSN, and several members of the Parti Quebecois. I had the honour to deliver a speech. Unfortunately, there were no representatives from the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal Party, or the Progressive Conservative Party. Nevertheless, I would like to ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the demands made during this important demonstration? Does he agree with the men, women and children who shouted: "No war for oil. No blood for oil"?
Does he not agree as well that Quebec is also distinct in that a larger proportion of voters is in favour of a peaceful solution, according to polls? It is not a distinct society just from a linguistic point of view. It is also a

Government Orders
distinct society from the point of view of the efforts we should make for peace.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say we all agree about the package of demands presented by the coalition. However, there are nuances. I know that even among the coalition, there are friendly discussions to determine if Canadian troops should be pulled out immediately and permanently. Some think that they should not, and that they must stay there to insure the effectiveness of the embargo and generally speaking, we all agree on the subject. But on the whole, the answer is yes.
Is Quebec a distinct society, since it is more in favour of peace than other peoples? I don't know, Mr. Speaker. I think that all nations of the world are fairly pacific. I believe in fact that the Iraqi people strives for peace, but I do not believe that their leaders would allow it for the moment. I think that we are a pacific society, aware of its responsabilities, but I do not believe that pacifism and respect for peace is the prerogative of Quebec. We were not able to take part in this demonstration because we had a caucus meeting, but we met representatives of the coalition immediately after, and we have been able to exchange ideas. I must say that this encounter has been extremely profitable for us.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have just a simple comment as we have been asked and I know that time is running out fast.
Without beating about the bush and without any qualification, I want to thank the honorable member for the speech he has just delivered. It is a speech which has raised the tone of the debate to a higher level. This has been done without any partisanship and I cannot help being very sensitive to what the honorable member has just said to the House, since for so many years I have thought that one of the questions which should have been included in the international agenda is this Middle East international peace conference. So many murders, and so many tragedies could have been avoided!
We can go back to November 29, 1947, when the United Nations decided to create two separate States in Palestine. I accept this decision my country made on November 29, 1947, to create two separate States, one for the Israelis with the full rights of a state, including protection, recognition, acceptation, provided another State be created for the others.
I can tell you right now that tomorrow or probably the day after tomorrow, I will deal with this issue and I will be highly inspired by the remarks the hon. member had made because he touched upon nearly all the points on which my attention has been focused for the past 25 years. I am very pleased to say that finally-they say that we preach in the desert, but I do not think so. Without any bias in favour of the government or the opposition. The time has come for whoever is really seeking peace over there to address directly all the problems which are only growing more bitter and adding up.
We could easily develop an argument about this and it is the hon. member who gave me the idea when I listened to him very carefully, because if we address all the major problems in the Middle East, we can establish a relation between them and go back to the source of this major injustice which finally will have to come to an end one day at an international conference. I am happy and honoured to have heard the hon. member refer to Mr. Pearson. Personally, I am sorry for all those who came after him. I have always fashioned my parliamentary life on Mr. Pearson's, perhaps because he was Prime Minister the first time I came here.

I always said I was a Pearson boy.

In the area of international relations, I have always had the pleasure of identifying with Mr. Pearson and the tribute which the hon. member has just paid him showed, in addition to a lack of partisanship, a true knowledge of the history of this country, something for which I thank him.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also want to support the hon. member for Saint-Denis for what he has just said. I think that the member who made these remarks has put his finger on the essential aspect of the situation which now prevails in

the Middle East, the injustice which has existed there for so many years.
People have asked for an international peace conference. It should have been convened a long time ago. I would suggest that a solution to the problem will remain quite elusive until such a conference is held. I think that Canada, ever a strong advocate of world peace, has the obligation to show leadership in that endeavour. We are not a nation known for invading other countries. The minister's resolution before us this evening would give free rein to the government to join the war in the Middle East.
I think we must first solve the problem of peace in the Middle East by doing justice to the Palestinian people and also to the Israeli people who must have security and feel quite safe within their own borders. Until we find that solution we will be trying to settle these issues by means which indeed are unacceptable to the world community, and I mean war. I want to commend the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean for his remarks.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, tonight Canadians are afraid and they are rightfully afraid, of war. I am afraid of war. My local council sent me a telegram advising that "the council opposes Canada's involvement in a possible Middle East war, as further efforts should be made to bring about a peaceful settlement". The council is not in favour of war.
Mr. Eugene Clawson of Matsquie writes: "Please, please, don't let Canada contribute to a war in the Middle East. Death, destruction, and devastation are the results of war. Peace does not come by force. War will result in dying people. Death is humanly permanent. Death hurts, not only the one dying, but the loved one who remains behind. War will result in people being disabled physically, mentally, psychologically. What on earth could make us contribute to such death and destruction, not only to people from other nations whom we do not know, but people we send to the area to actually wreak such havoc. What is worth the loss and maiming of so many lives? Please don't let loss of life be dedicated by artificially set standards and deadlines. Please let Canada and Canadians be emissaries of peace, not perpetrators of death."
Most of the people in my riding do not want war. They want me to tell you that tonight. I am telling you that on behalf of the people I represent. I was impressed, having read the letter of the Prime Minister to the Secretary-General of the United Nations of January 9. The Prime Minister was speaking for all Canadians. He said: "This
Government Orders
is sad news for all of us but we must not give up hope." He concluded by saying: "We should all go the extra mile for peace." The Prime Minister does not want war.
I heard an eloquent speech from the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada who has worked tirelessly for peace. He stood here today and told us: "The Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada does not want war. He wants peace." Every person who has stood in this House of Commons tonight has said: "We don't want war."
The United Nations said it does not want war. Even Saddam Hussein says he does not want war. Yet in less than two hours, we can be going to war. How can you, Madam Speaker, and I, and this government be such terrible failures that we, as politicians of the world, have failed to prevent war. Can the United Nations, which has not been able to bring a just and lasting peace to the Middle East, if we give it a mandate to go to war, bring just and lasting peace to the Middle East through this war? I do not think so.
Last fall we all felt a great euphoria. We felt good because the world was coming together at the United Nations. It was coming together to establish a consensus that could lead to new respect for the rule of law, a new world order and it would find the answer to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We have never seen the nations of the world come together like that and probably have not had that good feeling since then. These things seemed so positive to us. If the results of the world coming together in a consensus is simply to cause war, is that success or failure? In my eyes, that is not success, that is the failure of the United Nations, as it is our failure.
Since the last great war to end all wars, what a vain and naive hope that man would stop fighting with man, nation with nation, what are the results? We established from those great wars the United Nations, and it is charged with resolving conflict and preventing war. That is what I was taught in school. That is what I believed when I studied the United Nations.
Since the birth of the United Nations it has not found consensus. It has been fight to fight, talk to talk, but very few successes. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said: "Now the United Nations is reborn again because it has consensus". Consensus for what? To fail at imposing sanctions, to fail at diplomacy, and now to find success through force and asking us to mandate them for this force.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
From such a brave and positive start last fall, the world pulled together. The reason that it pulled together was because it was were against aggression, violence and force. The United Nations was against violence, force and aggression. How did it move from that position to recommending that a solution to the problem of aggression, violence and force was in fact a more massive scale aggression, violence, force, or war? I cannot believe we could be in that position in less than two hours, and it gives me great, great concern.
As we approach this war, I hear too often when a question is asked: "Well, we don't know what the result will be." That is a fair answer because we do not know what the result will be. We need to tiy to answer some of those questions with a little more certainty than I think I have heard to date.
What are the objectives that we hope to accomplish by this war? Are the objectives of the multinational force agreed upon as we enter this war? Do they know what they want to accomplish? Yes, they want to accomplish the removal of Iraq from Kuwait. Beyond that, do they want to see the total destruction of the nation of Iraq, the city of Bagdad and all the cities and all the economic development which has occurred there in the flush of the oil crisis of the seventies and the rebirth of technology and opportunity throughout the Middle East? Are we stopping at the borders of Kuwait or are we going in to crush Iraq? Are we going to crush the government or are we going to preserve the government? What are our exact objectives? If one does not know what one's objectives are or where one is going, you do not know when to stop.
We should have a clear understanding of what our objectives are so that when they are accomplished, we will know it is time to stop. If we do not determine the objectives before we enter the war, we will have the passions of war and will not know when to stop. This one kills this one, kills this one, kills this one and there is an escalation of anger. In that escalation of anger there is a loss of a capacity to reason. Before we do it, let us know how far we are going to go, what our objectives are, and, when this is completed, when it is time to stop.
How much will this war cost the Government of Canada? We know what it has cost us to date. How much will it cost us by the time it is finished? How many millions and billions of dollars did we pay for the planes? We did refit those ships. More important are the lives of the Canadians who are there. It is not just the Canadians but the other 500,000 from all of these other countries and the whole arsenal of war of the modem world which sits there, in readiness, to be field tested. How much will it cost every Canadian at the gas pump once the oil fields of the Middle East are on fire and the pipelines are disrupted, not just in Iraq and Kuwait but through the whole region? What will that add just to your dollar cost? That is a simple equation but, has anyone calculated that and added that into the cost of our proceeding into this war?
How many lives will we take before we say "that is enough" and cease firing?
We have decided in this House that we are concerned about the environment. Before this government embarks on any action, it is supposed to have an environmental impact assessment. I wonder, if we took the time, what the environmental impact assessment would indicate. How can we erase the human and environmental degradation caused by chemical, biological, and perhaps even nuclear contamination that could result? This may not be a result but there is no one here who can tell me that it will not be and there are many who have told me it may. How do we erase and repair that damage? How much does it cost, not just in dollars, but how much does it cost the globe on which we live?
Who will go in after it is over to support and heal the people and to rebuild the families, their homes, their businesses and their lives? I wish someone speaking in this debate could give me and those listening to this debate some kind of assurance or answers about these kinds of things.
It is easy to start a war. That is easy. We have all the equipment over there and all you have to say is "go".
Can anyone tell me how, where and when it will be stopped? Will it be a quick kind of efficient killing war? Or is it going to be the kind that drags on week after week after week, the gentlemanly kind of a war where we keep just shooting each other. Everynight on televi-

sion, we will watch the death and destruction live, first hand, and see the people crying and suffering for months and months.
What cost to those who suffer? What cost to my child and your child who watches that on television night after night? We do not even know if we can accomplish the objective. They say we can accomplish an air strike, but once we get down to digging in, and the rainy season and so forth, we are not quite so sure. We think. We are not sure.
Can we accomplish the objective of the removal of Iraq from Kuwait? How many soldiers will it take? How many families? How much property destroyed? Is it 100, 100,000, or one million? How many lemmings are going to have to run off the cliff before we are willing to assess the abyss at the bottom? What is the bottom line on all of this?
I ask everyone listening in the House of Commons and across the nation: Are you willing to sacrifice your son or your daughter for the cause of removing Saddam Hussein? If any one of you vote for that, you are voting for a sacrifice of the families of Canada's young men and women who are there, and you are voting for the sacrifice of millions of others: Americans, British, French, Kuwaitis and Iraqis.
When I ask myself that question, I say: "I do not think I am ready." I have teenage sons, like many here. If I have to sacrifice my son and pay that price, I want to think again. I ask my son, and what does he say? He is a member of the reserves. He says: "Dad, if I am called, I am going." He will. It is pretty scary stuff when it hits that close to home, and we need to make it hit that close to home before we make any decision or before we stop trying to negotiate.
I am not willing at least at this stage-I do not think I ever will be-to commit my sons to a sandy, forgotten grave in the desert. If I am not willing to do that, how can I possibly commit the sons and daughters of other Canadians whom I am charged to represent here?
Timing could well be a factor. How much time is enough? Everybody has been arguing about how much time is enough. Who knows? Nobody knows the answer to that one either.
Government Orders
Before we sanction force, why do we not tighten up the blockade? What have we been waiting for here? Why are we not sanctioning Iraq, Jordan or Turkey into compliance with the land blockade? Canada seems to be doing a good job covering half the people of the interdictions in the ocean in the naval blockade.
If they cannot do the job of enforcing the land blockade, why do we not go in and help them? Why do we not tighten up that blockade? We should have tightened it up after the first month or as soon as we could see that in fact many products were getting through.
One of the speakers said today: "Oh, we cannot do that because the only one who gets hurt are the people. The army does not get hurt". Quite frankly, if I was in Iraq right now and was given a choice, of deprivation of food, and the other amenities of life or a massive bombing by the war machine of the entire western world, I think the choice would be rather easy.
I think that I would choose, of course, to recognize that that suffering is better than the loss of life itself. There are so many things yet to consider.
Madam Speaker, I am sure that you are aware that there is a panic in Canada right now. People are watching their television sets and they are switching from the channels in the United States, to the channels in Canada to the channels that are coming from Britain through their satellites. They are switching to hear the news of the world. They are switching and hoping that on that news they are going to hear somebody say: "We can resolve this without war. There will be no war".
When I talk to my wife on the phone about this, she told me that her stomach was sick and in cramps as she contemplated the horror and realities of this impending war.
I was impressed with many of the speeches today. I was impressed with the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I was impressed with the calm logic of is the Leader of the New Democratic Party. If that represents different sides, they did not really sound too much different, both of them wanting to prevent war.
Surely we can keep trying. We need to try once more, once more, and then once more again, because the alternative is too terrible to contemplate, let alone to have to vote upon.

Government Orders
If we should continue to fail, and by that I mean if war does proceed, I would hope that our government in Canada would be the first to call for a cease fire almost the moment it begins. I hope they will get that dirty deed over as quickly as possible and get on with the peace settlement as quickly as possible.
Let us be the last there to enter with guns. Let us be the first there to bandage and rebuild that which we have laid to waste. May we all be forgiven for not preventing the massive state sanctioned slaughter.
Mr. Prime Minister, may you go that extra mile for peace today, before the shot is fired, the day after the shot is fired, and on until we have secured peace and security in the Middle East and in the world.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I must commend the hon. member for Fraser Valley West on that thoughtful, compassionate, and passionate speech. I hope it touched the heart of every other member in this House as it indeed touched mine.
I would like very briefly to read excerpts from two brief documents to the member and ask his response to them.
A little more than 50 years ago, on September 8,1939, in this House, J.S. Woodsworth rose to explain why it was he could not support Canadian participation in the Second World War.
Toward the conclusion of that speech, he related a little anecdote in which he said:
When the call came for us to come to Ottawa, I was staying at a little summer resort near the international boundary south of Vancouver. Near Blaine there is a peace arch between the two countries. The children gathered their pennies and planted a rose garden, and they held a fine ceremony in which they interchanged national flags and sang songs and that kind of thing; a beautiful incident.
J.S. Woodsworth said:
I take my place with the children. I know it seems very foolish, but as I talked the other day with a young woman whose proposed marriage was about to be postponed because her perspective husband might be called to the colours- I thought that for her the possibilities of life were fading away. Again I recall a talk the other day in my own city of Winnipeg to a group of young men who came to see me, some of whom have been unemployed for months past, who were wondering whether they should jump at this opportunity of getting a job. I do not care whether you think me an impossible idealist or a dangerous crank, I am going to take my place beside the children and those young people, because it is only as we adopt new
policies that this world will be at all a liveable place for our children
who follow us.
At my office in Edmonton this afternoon I received a copy of a letter to the Prime Minister. It is from my St. Michael's School. In its brief entirety, it reads: "Dear Prime Minister Brian Mulroney: This is a very serious letter. We just want to let you know that Canada has been famous for being a peacekeeping country, not a warmaking country, and we want to keep our country with peace and not start war. Please keep our soldiers here, don't get Canada involved in the war; besides no one forced Canada to fight so please understand that we are trying to ask as a simple favour. Please Bring Our Canadian Troops back home; don't get Canada involved with the war. We, the grade six class, are writing this on behalf of our whole school." It is thereafter signed by 18 names.
Madam Speaker, I too stand with the children. I ask the hon. member if he does.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, I think there is some kind of a song that says "let the children lead the way". Sometimes people say "Let the women lead the way, they are for peace", and that sort of thing. Undoubtedly, we do have to look to the children in their innocence.
The hon. member mentioned the great peace arch between Canada and the United States. There are two sides on that peace arch. There is an open door symbolizing the open border between Canada and the United States, two nations which do not even need weapons or guards on their border. You just pass through like an open door, that is what that peace arch stands for. It is a symbol of what the world can be and what national relations can be. On the top of that peace arch, it states "Children of a common mother", meaning children of a common mother of the United States and Canada.
The children of Iraq and the children of the world are the children of a common mother. They are children who need to be protected, cared for and preserved, not bombed, not the most innocent victims of the war. It is the children that are the innocent victims.
On the other side of the peace arch it states "brethren dwelling together in unity". These slogans, which I remember as a younger person sounded a little corny to me, but do they not sound real tonight? Is that not what the world needs, that open door, that peace arch,

Government Orders
between us all? Hopefully, we can attain that. That I did not come here, predetermined, my mind made up should be the mandate of the United Nations and of this and that was all there was to it. Yes, I have an open mind Parliament.	and have not decided what I will do in that case.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Fraser Valley West for his excellent speech. He touched the essence of the problem. People today believe that we can find a solution that would be peaceful. We do not have to go to war to find a solution in the Middle East.
For many years there was a proposal to have an international peace conference on the Middle East and some of the nations of the United Nations objected to it. They did not want to accept it. As long as there is not a global solution in the Middle East, I think we will have a powder keg there and war could break out at any time.
I hope that Canada, as a peace loving, nation, will show the world the way as we have done in the past by being peacekeepers instead of initiating war. I hope that some of the government members will vote against the resolution of the government because it is a ticket that allows the government to send our troops into war. I do not think we have exhausted all the possibilities there for peace.
Three weeks ago I was in Washington. I talked to a senator who told me that there are indications that sanctions are working, that Iraq's gross national product has been reduced by 40 per cent. It means that it would be difficult for Iraq to go to war in maybe six months. Let us wait and let the sanctions work. I think they are working.
We need to have an international peace conference on the Middle East at the same time to resolve the problems as they present themselves. I would like to ask the hon. member whether he would agree that there should be an international peace conference on the Middle East once there is an indication of withdrawal from Kuwait by the Iraqis.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, two questions were posed, the first one on the issue of the vote itself. In the last vote I abstained. I have not yet decided what I will do on the next vote because I believe in the spirit of democracy and parliamentary debate that has brought us here today. I have listened to the partisan and non-partisan speakers. From that I am drawing a conclusion. I think that is what is supposed to happen here. I hope that
I had some hope when the leader of the NDP call for a free vote. She said in her own group there were those who were dissident, who did not agree with her view. I asked who in the NDP will vote with the government. Well, nobody. So the NDP will pass a party vote. I expect the Liberals will pass a party vote, and the Conservatives will pass a party vote, and I am sorry about that. I am sorry that that is the way it has been since I came into this place and I am sorry to probably leave this place and have it the same way.
This place needs to move to non-partisanship. If we can have a free vote on abortion which is about life, on capital punishment which is about life, can we not have a free vote on the millions that will be killed by these kinds of decisions? Everybody calls for it but when the vote comes it will be by parly. Unfortunately. I wish that it could be half here, and half here, and half here so we could get a bit of true expression.
The government leader has stated this is government policy so I will have to decide all of these things. I have not yet decided but I would like to see the evolution of our Parliament more in that direction.
A peace conference may or may not be the answer to the Middle East. I used to think that you could add it all up and find some simple solution for the Middle East until the ambassador from Jordan said to me: "Mr. Wenman, what is wrong with the status quo? Sometimes that is the best we can achieve?" If that is the best we can achieve, we should try to achieve that.
This war is not going to roll us back to the status quo. It is going to be as unstable after the war as it is now. Stability is not an outcome. A peace conference may be useful but certainly if our United Nations means anything it should get on with settling those issues in the Middle East, if not all of them at least some of them.
It is commendable that the NDP member stands up here as he reads the resolution, having new things added to it at the last minute. That is good. We should all do that kind of thing. But that resolution calls for all the problems of the Middle East to be settled at a peace conference. Well, really now.

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
The intentions of everyone here are good. We have to take those intentions and drive them with energy through the United Nations to another alternative other than war.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Madam Speaker, the understandable tendency in such an important discussion as we are having today is to seek guidance from precedents, from earlier events in our history or in international relations which may in some way help to guide us.
We have had today a number of speakers draw attention to the traditions of Canada in peacekeeping, but others have reached back prior to those post-war years and looked to the inter-war years. The Prime Minister in particular and to a degree the Secretary of State for External Affairs. They argued that support for the United Nations by supporting military action today was in contrast to the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations in the 1930s. The need at that time for military action in their view evaded.
I want to say just one word about that before we turn to more recent events. The fact is that in the 1930s the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations was not simply because the member states of the League of Nations were unwilling to engage in military action against dictatorships intent upon expanding beyond their own borders, but rather because of two factors. The first, of course, is fundamental. The United States was not a member of the League of Nations. The League of Nations in that sense was not universal. That is not the situation today with the United Nations.
The United Nations embodies almost all the nations of the world. The League of Nations was fundamentally flawed and rendered largely ineffective by the absence of the United States resulting from a decision of the United States Senate.
The second argument that the government advanced in its historical parallels was that somehow the unwillingness of the League of Nations to engage in military action rendered it ineffective. It was not in fact an unwillingness to engage in military action which rendered the League of Nations ineffective.
It was not only the absence of the United States from the League, but the unwillingness to give economic sanctions a real chance against the aggression of Italy and Abyssinia, the unwillingness of the British to use the Royal Navy to prevent Italian shipping to reach Abyssinia, and the unwillingness in effect of the League to give economic sanctions a chance. That, should be the parallel drawn today.
It was not an unwillingness on the part of the members of the League to use military force but rather the failure to give economic sanctions the chance they needed to be effective.
The fact is that all of us on each side of this House would agree that the regime in Iraq is a regime that none of us would find attractive or appealing in any way, but that is not our decision. That is not our judgment. The sole judgment is that Iraq has seized the territory of another member state of the United Nations.
It is that question that we are addressing, and it is that question that raises the debate today. Why is Canada on the edge of war? Why is Canada on the edge of declaring itself engaged in war in the Middle East? Certainly, we have not heard the government advance the argument that it is to ensure that international oil prices remain low. It is not to bring about a longer term settlement in the Middle East, however desirable that may be.
The government suggests that it has only one purpose in engaging Canadian forces in the Middle East; that is, to support collective security. It bases its whole argument and rationale for the engagement of Canadian forces on the idea that if Canada and other like minded nations do not provide forces to participate in military action in the gulf, the United Nations will somehow collapse, fail and be rendered impotent.
Let us spend a few minutes on that proposition, because I think it is really the central proposition. In advancing that argument, in the historical sense of saying that if the member nations of the United Nations do not join together in military action, it will mean the collapse of collective security and the negation of everything that Canada, since 1945, has worked for in the United Nations. It will mean the rejection of Canadian goals in Canada's own seeking of that security in collective action.
If that is what the government's argument is based on, then the government perhaps understandably tries to polarize the argument. It says: "Either we engage in
January 15, 1991

military action today, or the United Nations system collapses." "There is no choice," the government says.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister this afternoon offered that stark alternative: Either Canada participates in military action, and supports collective security through the agency of the United Nations or else that post war dream of security through collective action fades and dies.
Those are not the only choices. Why must Canadians think for one moment that we have to choose between either military action or the collapse of the United Nations?
The government narrows the alternatives. It suggests sanctions are ineffective and therefore force is the only remaining alternative. I do not think anyone on either side of this House would dispute that military force may eventually be required. That may be so, but we are far from that situation yet. We are far from a common determination among the member states of the United Nations that the only alternative is the use of military force. We are far, very far from any assurance among member states and among the people of the world that the economic sanctions, the embargo that has been placed on Iraq, have proven to be ineffective.
If we look at United Nations resolution 678, which is the latest resolution in series the Security Council about the situation in the Middle East, Iraq and the gulf, we find that the Security Council decision is somewhat different than that which the government has advanced in support of its argument that military action is now necessary.
First, the Security Council resolution does not address itself to all the members of the United Nations. It addresses itself to "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait." Obviously those who drafted the resolution had in mind that there are some states that are not of a mind of co-operating with the Government of Kuwait. Otherwise the text is meaningless.
There are some governments which, by the terms of this resolution, do co-operate with the Government of Kuwait. What are they called upon to do? They are called upon to use "all necessary means" to uphold
Government Orders
resolution 660 which called upon Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. "All necessary means" may well include military means, but it does not mean exclusively military means.
There is a range of others means available to the United Nations and to member states that are co-operating with the Government of and to bring about the implementation of the resolution calling for the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. Then it requests all members states to provide appropriate support, not military support, to those nations which regard themselves as co-operating with the Government of Kuwait.
There is nothing in that resolution and there is nothing in the traditions of the United Nations, where I had the honour of serving for five years in our diplomatic service, that requires Canada to engage in military action. It is a choice. It is a decision for Canada or for any other sovereign member of the United Nations whether or not it chooses to express its opposition to the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq in terms of military action or in terms of other forms of sanction. The Security Council does not say the United Nations is now setting up a military force, and utilizing the military committee of the United Nations to formulate a UN force to operate under the UN flag. Not at all. There is no UN force envisaged.
What is envisaged is that each individual member state, some that regard themselves as co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, will take a decision on whether or not it wishes to give expression to its opposition by military force or other measures following January 15. We shall know in the days ahead what states have come to the conclusion that only military force will achieve the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait.
That is not a decision that Canada need take. Canada is a sovereign nation able to make its own decisions under the terms of the Security Council resolution. It is perfectly free to continue its support, as I very much agree that it should do, of the economic sanctions.
The question before us, then, is whether in the view of Canadians the economic sanctions have been given time to work or whether now military force is required to bring about the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait.

Government Orders
The government, in response to our repeated appeal to allow economic sanctions, to work, has indicated repeatedly that sanctions have not worked. "Tell us how sanctions have worked", the government says to the opposition. That is not a question to ask the opposition. That is not a question to ask those who do not form a government. That is a question for the government itself to answer to the Canadian people.
Instead, the government itself is offering to Canadians the sole alternative of going to war, of using military force. It must justify that terrible decision with real evidence that sanctions have not worked. It is the government that should have access to the information about the efficiency of sanctions.
Surely none of us are so naive as to think that the intelligent sources of the major western countries are insufficient to honeycomb the Government of Iraq and with agents or, to put it at the other extreme, that the electronic surveillance of Iraq cannot sufficient to tell us whether the sanctions are working.
The United Nations itself has not come forward yet, as it is required to do under the terms of earlier resolutions of the Security Council and with a clear indication of the efficacy of economic sanctions.
Let us have that information. Let this government bring it forward if that is part of its explanation of why today military force is today necessary. If the government is arguing that economic sanctions are ineffective let it also, bring forward in concert with the other major western nations involved in this enterprise, methods of rendering the economic sanctions more effective.
The extraordinary ingenuity that goes into military action, equipment and organization surely could be applied in some small degree to rendering the borders of Iraq with Jordan and with Iran more or less permeable to sanction breaking material. Let us see how we can use technology and our collective ingenuity, to render the borders of Iraq closed to the imports of material which permits Iraq to continue, as it has been doing, to maintain its arms forces at some degree of readiness.
There is no question in my mind that the sanctions against Iraq could be redoubled, could be rendered far more effective than they are now, if we had a real commitment among member states of the United Nations to make those sanctions more effective rather than turn in effect to the easy solution of direct military intervention. Let us give sanctions time to work. We have, after all, began to see effect of sanctions. We know that they are beginning to work. We know that in four or five months they have begun to take their toll on the ability of the Iraqi armed forces to operate efficiently. We know that they are beginning to have their effect on Iraqi morale, equipment and industrial capacity. Let us give time to sanctions to work because the alternative in my view is virtually unthinkable.
The cliche is often used of unleashing the dogs of war but there is truth, as in all cliches, in that observation. Who knows where we shall be if war breaks out in the Middle East?
France has today offered yet another approach to a solution to the problems that have arisen as a result of Iraq's wholly unprincipled and unacceptable occupation of Kuwait. Among the six points in the latest French proposal are two that we should consider for a moment. One is the forecast of a need for a peacekeeping force. This is an obvious requirement in any situation which is likely to occur in the next weeks or months in Iraq and Kuwait, a need for a peacekeeping force. But is Canada going to participate? Is Canada be acceptable as a member state to engage in peacekeeping if we today commit our forces to military action in the Middle East? No. That traditional opportunity that has been embodied in Canadian policy since the Second World War to offer our forces, our technology, and our organizational capacities to support a peacekeeping force will be negated if we today were to engage in military action. By so doing, we are in effect, rejecting the sort of comprehensive approach that France and others have been urging.
Equally, the government tells us nothing about the idea of a general conference on the Middle East, another major point in the French proposals that have been brought forward in the last 24 hours. Has been much thought given to the idea of a general conference on the Middle East? How can anyone be immune to the idea that the Lebanon situation, the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and now the issue of Iraq and Kuwait can be resolved in other than a general approach to peace throughout the Middle East?

Again, what role is Canada to play in the advancement of a positive and constructive general conference on the Middle East, if we participating in military action?
No, the option for Canada is quite clear. It is not to engage in military action. It is not to convince itself that otherwise the United Nations is going to collapse and that collective security is going to be eroded if we do not engage in military action today. On the contrary, the best route for Canada to take is to engage in economic sanctions, to support our allies and friends in such action, and ensure through their full implementation the resolution of not only the problem between Iraq and Kuwait but of the whole Middle East situation.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Etobicoke North and seek his comment on the following statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He said: "We should not rule out the possibility that young Canadian soldiers, women and men, will not return to this country for celebrations, but will stay in the gulf for burial". This statement was made in October 1990. It requires only a little observation on the part of those who have expressed their thoughts on this important issue as the hon. member for Etobicoke North has done.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, the bankruptcy of the government's approach to the wholly deplorable situation that has arisen in the Middle East is certainly exemplified by the statement which the hon. member for Davenport has just cited.
To conclude in October that there is no alternative for Canada in seeking to support the rule of law in the expulsion of an aggressor from another nation, that there was no alternative but the death of young Canadians, strikes me as the worst form of bankruptcy of international diplomacy. We are far from that situation. We can enforce sanctions. Along with the other nations engaged in the so-called coalition in the Gulf we can double our efforts to insure that they are more effective.
I do not doubt in the absence of any evidence that the government can offer that those sanctions can be more effective, not tomorrow, not the next day, but certainly in the time ahead. It is that route which promises the most effective means of countering the aggression that has taken place and contributing to the eventual resolution
Government Orders
of the major issues that continue to dog our efforts to bring about lasting peace in the Middle East.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, let me compliment my good friend and colleague from Etobicoke for his contributions here this evening. His wisdom and years of experience in the diplomatic corp have shown through in the thoughtful presentation he made for us to consider.
We listened to the debate in the United States Senate over the past weekend in some detail, and we heard at some point today what we consider to be the vital national interest. At that time, it was the vital national interest of what the senators in the United States consider to be the national interest of their country.
I think we hedged around it today when the government tried to explain what the vital national interest of Canada is to embark on this catastrophic event of bringing this country to the brink of war, and perhaps within 55 minutes to the actual war. I ask my friend what vital interests are we protecting? In his opinion, what vital Canadian interests are we protecting by this move to which the government is bringing us in such a short period of time?


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon for his comment and question. I do not think any of us would dispute that Canada has long had and will continue to have a fundamental national interest in seeing that collective security is the best route to ensure Canadian security. I do not think any of us dispute that.
The question that the government has in effect posed to Canadians is, whether or not military action the only route to ensure that collective security. The answer is, patently, no. There is a spectrum of opportunity that faces the United Nations members and Canadians today to reinforce our collective security by measures other than military.
Resolution 678 of the Security Council does not say that the United Nations decided as of January 15 that military action will take place. It leaves to the member states, that is those member states that are co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, to decide what measures they want to take to implement the resolution calling upon Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.

Government Orders
At that point it is not the United Nations that is taking the decision about what to do or when to do it. In this instance it is the Government of the United States which apparently is taking the decision that the situation requires military action. The United States, as a member state of the United Nations co-operating with the Government of Kuwait has decided that it is going to embark upon military action.
Because the United States government has apparently so decided, that is no reason why Canada, or Belgium, or Italy, or Argentina need make the same decision. We are sovereign, free to make our own decision how we want to contribute to the removal of Iraq from Kuwait. We can make our decisions about timing and about the method we wish to pursue in our own time and in our own way.
I would urge the government, as was so eloquently expressed by our leader today and indeed our critic for external affairs, to make that decision in terms of economic sanctions and not in terms of military action.
What will happen if we engage in military action in the next days or weeks in the Middle East? I defy anyone to foresee, where we come out of that in a month or two, or six. But I can tell you that if member states pursue economic sanctions vigorously and redouble our efforts to make them effective, the odds are much greater that an effective and satisfactory resolution of the dilemmas of the Middle East will be brought about. Sanctions offer far greater chances, than any military action is likely to result in.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech as well. I would like to ask him a question vis-a-vis sanctions.
We have heard reports for the last several days and weeks now about goods and products leaking into Iraq, especially through Iran. I would like to ask the member for Etobicoke North what his feelings are on that. How can we manage to avoid these leaks? We are looking at sanctions and how firm they could and should be, and we then hear reports about borders leaking and that Saddam Hussein is in fact getting many products into his country. I was wondering if the member could comment on that.
As well, could he comment on Resolution 662 by which the UN certainly asks for an early end to this conflict. Could he also comment on Resolution 674 where the UN Security Council is asking for the immediate withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait.
I was wondering how long these sanctions would be going on. What would the hon. member see as a timeframe for sanctions?


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, I wish I had access to the information that would permit me to hazard an answer to the member's question, but of course I do not have such information even nor does anyone on this side of the House. It may be that the government's information is limited.
As I said earlier, with the possibilities which electronic surveillance at the one extreme and human surveillance in the more traditional sense at the other extreme offer, I cannot think that it is beyond the wit-I was going to say mankind-of people to devise methods in which the sanctions can be rendered much more effective than they are today. What is lacking is a real commitment to make sanctions work because of the tendency on the part of some nations to use military force, to see military force as the quicker, easier option. But it is an option fraught with danger, fraught with consequences that none of us can you foresee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member. The period for question and comments has now expired. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Port-neuf.


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, it is not easy for me to rise tonight to give my opinion on a resolution fraught with dire consequences. Often Canadian men and women wonder what kind of person they have elected and they often have the impression their members of Parliament can take decisions because they are not directly involved. I tell them that matter affects me deeply. Veiy few people know what I am about to say. I have a son who has just turned 20, the only child who survived out of the six my wife and I had. Needless to say the mere fact of discussing a matter that risk getting our

country into a conflict, which sooner or later, could involve the only child we have left moves me greatly.
However, when I decided to run in politics, I also accepted the challenge of making decisions, decisions that are not always easy to make, that often have important ramifications, but that must first and foremost be absolutely fundamental to the future of our country.
We should remember, that at the end of the last World War, Canada was considered as having a very important national defence. Indeed, the Canadian Navy was the third best in the world with almost 400 ships and three aircraft carriers. Our country was important for its national defense and for world-wide security. However, Canada quickly realized that the two superpowers of the day-the United States and the U.S.S.R.-were becoming more and more important and were depriving lesser countries such as France, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and others of more and more say in international decision-making.
That is why Canada put so much effort in founding an organization called NATO, and it succeeded through contacts and relations it had with various countries in influencing the charter of that organization. It also helped set up the defence of the North American continent. Canada knew that it was caught anyway in the firing line between two large powers, the United States to the South and the USSR to the North.
During the 1970s, Canada reflected on its situation. Everybody remembers the October missile crisis when on one side Mr. Khrushchev had the option of pushing a button and on the other side Mr. Kennedy had the option to do the same. At that time, Canada realized that in spite of the United Nations Organisation which existed at that time, and in spite of NATO, NORAD and the Commonwealth which existed and to whom it belonged, something was missing.
Smaller countries did not have much influence on these two giants. That was when Canada started to work very hard with European countries, several NATO members and some countries from Eastern Europe to establish an organization called the Commission on Security and Control. This Commission was set up to find security and control measures that would protect the various States from one another, and ensure that no neighbouring country would invade them.
Government Orders
Canada became renowned within the CSCE, particularly for its work on human rights. Our country firmly and vigorously fought for freedom of movement. We argued that any citizen of one country had the right to move from one country to another without any difficulties or too much red tape. That is what Canada has worked for.
Canada ranks seventh in the world as an economic power while ranking 31st in terms of population. But Canada is fourth in terms of its economic contribution to the UN. Why? Because for 45 years, Canada has been a firm believer in international authority, in an international forum that would be capable of setting landmarks for nations, rules that are acceptable to all democratic nations on this planet so that we can live together on this speck of dust that travels the universe, our planet Earth.
Many of my colleagues spoke of environmental matters. Environment is indeed important. It seems that our climate is warming up and that there are many more problems. The UN should be able to take action and be effective at some point in time. After 45 long years, this day has come.
I felt it was a miracle to see the five countries which had a veto refusing to use it for once. There must not be two blocks any more, the good and the bad, whites and blacks. We have to sit down and work together in a reasonable way to find peaceful solutions. Almost at the same time, a country which had just ended an eight-year-long war with its neighbour, a war that cost nearly one million human lives and during which nearly 40 000 persons were burned and thousands of others were killed by the use of all kinds of toxic gas, decided to attack Kuwait. He moved into that small country. Of course, that country may not have been as democratically advanced as we are, but the process of democratization was under way. It is a country which was moving in the right direction, which wanted to give its citizens more autonomy, more social justice. He invaded that country.
It is a country which had never done any harm to Iraq. But Mr. Hussein, on behalf of his people, decided to invade it. I do not hold a grudge against the Iraqi people because they do not know what is really going on. It has no information whatsoever. Mr. Hussein and his entourage, Iraq's leaders, control the information to their people. If his people knew exactly the ins and outs of the

January 15, 1991
Government Orders
present situation, Mr. Hussein would already be out of Kuwait. He would have gone out rapidly. If Mr. Hussein had informed his people about the risks involved in the invasion of Kuwait, he would never had invaded that country, never. Would we be here debating? I am not so sure. Must Canada use force if necessary? Some have asked if Canada had the right to declare war. Canada has been in a state of war for several months already. When this House agreed to support the UN measures, when we agreed to send our ships in the Persian Gulf, to send our aircrafts to protect them, when we agreed, as a nation, to support the economic embargo against Iraq, we have put our country to the service of the UN in a state of war. That's the truth.
Last November I was in Qatar and Bahrein. I met with Canadian soldiers who were there, real professionals, men and women of outstanding quality, the best we have in this country, people who are greatly appreciated by the residents of Qatar and Bahrain. Why are Canadians so appreciated over there? Because they are not seen as conquerors and invaders. Quite the contrary, they are considered as friends who come to lend them a hand, who come to help them protect themselves against a man who has attacked a small country like theirs.
This also marks the first time at the UN that people are so united, regardless of religion or language. Never have so many countries, so many different flags, or so many different nationalities formed a common front against a single individual.
Mr. Hussein did all he could to suggest it was a holy war and to rally his own blood brothers. They said: "No, Mr. Hussein, we do not agree with the way you are acting. This is no longer legitimate behaviour on the eve of the 21st century. We want peace in the Middle East. Mr. Hussein, you are leading us to war."
Madam Speaker, the moment a country like Canada decides to get involved in an international organization it has to be fully aware of the fact that it will have to live with its own decisions. This evening we are asking ourselves whether Canada will be compelled to resort to the necessary force. Let me put the question in a different context.
When an individual or a group of individuals goes into a bank or a building and takes hostages, how do we react when we hear about the incident? We call the police. We say: "There are people who took others as hostages, who do not respect our laws. We ask you to do your job, to get them out of there and to free the hostages." That is what we do in Canada. Everybody understands that. People in Canada do not ask themselves: "Are the police going to use their weapons? Could the hostages get injured or killed?" We do not wonder about that. We say: It is normal that the police do their job. We do not ask ourselves if a policeman could get injured or killed. We ask him to do his job, to protect us, because there is someone who does not respect the law in our country.
And when we get to the international level, then we say: No, it is not the same. Well, I tell you that Canadian military people in the Gulf play exactly the same role as a policeman would in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. It is a policeman role that our people play over there. It is strictly that. And we say to Hussein: You took people as hostages in Kuwait and you will free them, otherwise we will do it ourselves. Except that the issue is not the same. We are not talking about three or four individuals and we are not using hand guns or small weapons.
Weapons are much bigger today and they are also much more effective. But the issue remains the same. The same reality exists but on a different scale, a monstrous one. The decision we must make as parliamentarians is whether or not we should enforce international laws. I say that we should, Madam Speaker. I think that with all the efforts that Canada has made for the cause of peace over the years, now is the time to act and to show other countries of the world that the UN is a serious concern and that its laws are serious and credible. We cannot shirk our duty and say: "Well, we will see once the hostilities break out". It is now that we must determine our course of action. We must not wait for the problem to come up before acting, but we must be on the spot to prevent it from happening if possible. It has not been possible to anticipate the problem this time, to prevent Mr. Hussein from invading Kuwait. But his action must be stopped. He must withdraw his troops from that country fast.

I understand the people who are demonstrating across Canada the young and, the not so young, people who are worried, who are against war and who came here in the visitors' gallery today to show us they were against war, who were walking up and down with signs that stated: No blood for oil. That's fine. Except that when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, his troops killed babies in their incubators, not breaking open barrels of oil. The women who were raped, were not barrels of oil. The men who were hanged, the hundreds of thousands of people who were herded into the desert, without water and without food, were not barrels of oil but human beings. Is Canada going to sit on its hands? Are we going to do nothing?
Is Canada going to say: Keep up the good work, Mr. Hussein? We have done everything possible and imaginable in the way of diplomatic approaches. We tried to impress him by moving in a huge multinational force something unheard of in the modem history of this planet. He did not budge. It is like talking to a wall. No reaction. The most respected man on this planet, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, the servant of the UN, a bom peacemaker who has been working hard all his life to pacify this planet was kept waiting. He kept him waiting in the hall as if he were a beggar. Is that the kind of respect he shows for the UN? How can we hope to convince him? I say there may yet be a possibility to be convinced. We have half an hour left, and I think there are three hours left until midnight in the Pacific, so we may still have three hours left until the deadline.
Maybe we will manage to convince him, maybe at the last minute he will touched by the Holy Spirit who will wake him up and say: "Saddam, you've got to get out. If you don't, you will be responsible for the largest cataclysm ever to happen on earth." I do not despair. I feel I do not have the right, as a representative of this country, as a member of this House elected by people I love, some of whom are presently in the gulf and whose relatives worry and call me. I understand their feelings and tell them that their sons or daughters have made a choice. I never wished that our military personnel be placed in such a situation, but when I met with them, they told me: "Mr. Ferland, don't worry about us, it's our job. We are going to do what we were trained for, but it
Government Orders
does not mean we like it and are not scared. We too feel the pain, but we will do our job because world security is what we are here for. We will see to it that the UN commitments are respected and we will make sure that Canada is ably represented in the gulf, that the work to be done will be carried out as expertly as we know how, in a professional manner."
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, let me say that the this was not an easy decision to make, and I did make a decision. It was not easy to make, but I will stand to vote. When the question is put I will vote for the resolution because I think that Canada has to support the United Nations resolution and continue the work that has been accomplished over the past 45 years. Canada is morally bound to be logical with itself and, if need be, to take action.
I am still hopeful, Madam Speaker, that God will inspire Mr. Hussein in the next few hours and make him understand that he must get out of that country.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief question for the hon. member. Of the 31 UN member states currently engaged to some degree of other in the imposition of the economic sanctions against Iraq, can the hon. member identify 10 that have betokened their intention to join the United States in offensive action against Iraq, if necessary?


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, I do not have to identify 10 states for the simple and good reason that I do not have to decide for the other States which are currently involved in the Gulf. The issue which is raised here tonight is to know whether or not Canada must fulfil its commitment with the UN. It must stick to its commitments and yes, Canada must carry them out fully.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I was very much interested in the remarks the hon. member has made. He dealt with justice and international law, as well as the fact that Canada must follow the directions of the United Nations, or rather the United States.

Government Orders
What I was most interested in is the fact that for years, more specifically since 1947, the United Nations have had resolutions concerning the Middle East, especially Palestine, Lebanon and Cyprus. Has the hon. member a double standards? Is there justice where there is oil, such as in Kuwait which owns 10 per cent of the world oil reserves but which is not a democracy, compared to Lebanon which was a democracy, with a population of three million and where 600,000 people worked as slaves to support the sheik's high standard of living. It is also a country where the Parliament was abolished three years ago. It was a dictatorship, while Lebanon, which was invaded, was a democracy. Why did they not take action in the case of Lebanon? Why take action in the case of Kuwait?
There is also the case of the Soviet Union which has attacked Lithuania and wants to abolish its duly elected government. Will he also be sending Canadian troops to protect the Lithuanians?


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. However, concerning the first part of his question, I must say that I do not agree with him at all when he says that Canada tags along with the U.S. I find it ridiculous that in Canada, parliamentarians continue to make people believe that Canada is always trailing behind the United States. If he had listened carefully to the speech given today by the hon. Joe Clark, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, he would know that Canada has had a great influence on its southern neighbour, convincing him, for once, not to repeat the traditional blocks pattern but to play its rightful role within the United Nations, like all the other countries of the world.
With regard to Lebanon, Lithuania, and all those countries, we could also talk about many others as Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. When Lebanon for instance faced those problems, and was invaded, the UN could not do anything at that time because we were in the middle of a cold war. There were two block, two giant powers facing each other. If one said: "I am going in there," the other would say "OK, go ahead, I will go in another area soon but do not come and bother me." The cold war is over and it must not come back.
The reason why it is important for Mr. Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait is that we will be in position from now on to tell the Lithuanians and the Lebanese that we
will be there as an international body to help them out of their troubles. That is the role of the UN, the role it will play in the future, a role which Canada has been wishing for that organization for the past 45 years. And I, for one, will not accept that one Saddam Hussein perverts the rules of the game today at the beginning of the year 1991. We are going into the 21st centuiy. I want my son to enjoy the same freedom I have enjoyed myself for 46 years. I want more for him. I want him to live on a planet where life is good everywhere, where people of all colours and creeds can feel free and at home under a democratically elected government. That is what I dream for every country of the world.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I want to start by making it absolutely clear that we in the Liberal Party fully support the charter of the United Nations and we fully support the role of the United Nations in preventing and resolving international conflict. We support the United Nations in its peacekeeping and its peacemaking roles. But just because we support the charter, this does not mean that we support every UN resolution and we certainly do not support Security Council resolution 678, which is the resolution which authorizes offensive military action against Iraq in 22 minutes from now.
The reason that we do not support that resolution is that we do not believe, as many others in the world do not believe, that it is the proper time. We maintain, as was pointed out by my leader this morning, that not enough time was given to the working of the economic sanctions, which in themselves were put forward by the United Nations in a Security Council resolution, not enough time for those sanctions to bite, and not enough time for diplomatic initiatives.
For the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to suggest that we do not support the United Nations simply because we do not support this or any other resolution is total nonsense. There are all sorts of UN resolutions that have not been implemented. There were many cases before the United Nations of aggression against other states which were condemned by the United Nations but for which there never were any economic sanctions or threats of war. My hon. colleague from Calgary just mentioned one of them. Lebanon was invaded by Syria and by Israel and nothing was done.


An hon. member:: And Cyprus.


William Warren Allmand: My hon. friend mentions Cyprus and I could mention even cases of the United States in Grenada, Panama, and so on.
When the Prime Minister stands up in his place, as he did this morning, and when the Secretary of State for External Affairs stands up and talks of principle, it rings a bit hollow. It is no wonder the world looks at this with a certain amount of doubt and suspicion. There is a great credibility gap in what is happening at the United Nations with the initiative of the United States.
Nobody believes that guff which is being delivered by the Prime Minister and by the Conservative party that just because we do not support this resolution, we do not support the United Nations. The Liberal Party has supported the United Nations from its very beginning and our former leader, Mr. Pearson, won the Nobel Prize for his innovative work at the United Nations. We support the charter of the United Nations but we do not support every resolution, nor does the Conservative Party. Nor does any government in the world support every resolution passed by the United Nations.
The reason we do not support this resolution 678 is because not enough time has been given to other methods to resolve the conflict. If one reads the charter of the United Nations closely, one will see in chapter 6 and 7, and it makes it very clear in those two chapters of the charter, that military action by the United Nations should only be used after other methods to resolve a conflict have been tried and failed.
The United Nations in the month of August approved of resolution 660 and other resolutions which provided for economic sanctions and military action to support the sanctions. These are now being tried, but they have not been proved to have failed. As a matter of fact there is a lot of evidence to the effect that they are beginning to bite and to bite hard.
I was at the United Nations for five days last week. I spoke to a medical team which had just returned from Iraq and I was told that the medical system in that country is in very bad shape as a result of sanctions. Others have returned from Iraq and will confirm that the Iraqi government is having a difficult time obtaining spare parts for its military equipment and military
Government Orders
vehicles, for its aircraft, and for its tanks. The major source of income for Iraq is oil revenues and they are not selling their oil.
I have an article written in The New York Times of yesterday, January 14, 1991. The headline of the article is: "Sanctions will bite and soon." In this article the writers refer to a study being carried out at Harvard University in which they have used an economic model to determine the effectiveness of the sanctions. They say that the sanctions are working and will work in a very strong manner. The article states: "Far from inconclusive the evidence suggests that sanctions will begin to bite sometime in the spring or early summer with a high probability of forcing Iraq from Kuwait as early as the fall." It states: "War may resolve the situation more quickly but with unpredictable side effects, including the loss of thousands of American lives."
I pointed to the resolutions of the United Nations in August. These resolutions authorize the sanctions and military action to support the sanctions. I said that if you read chapters 6 and 7 of the charter, it is absolutely clear that you only resort to military action after all other methods to resolve the conflict have failed. If one looks even beyond chapters 6 and 7 of the charter and look, at the preamble and the first chapter, which deals with the purposes of the United Nations, it is very clear that the purpose of the United Nations is to pursue peaceful means in resolving conflict. That is its principal goal. It must make every effort to seek peace through diplomatic and other measures and avoid war.
There certainly is nothing in the charter which would authorize "kicking ass", as the President of the United States suggested. At midnight on January 15, he would have the authority to go over and "kick ass" in Iraq and Kuwait. That did not impress the world and did not impress those who are seeking peaceful solutions to this very difficult situation.
I want to refer to an article by William Pfaff, a syndicated columnist for the Los Angeles Times, also on January 14, yesterday morning, in which he examines again whether or not this potential war is justified. In making his analysis, he refers to the moral rules that have been referred to over the centuries for judging whether or not a war is morally justified. He says that trouble begins with the third criterion for a justified war. He says that that is what the great debate in the United States Congress and among the public is about.

Government Orders
An important part of the allied camp, and of congressional and public opinion in the United States, thinks that sanctions should be given more time to work, that the alternatives to war have not been exhausted. This latter clearly is true.
Of course, that criterion that he refers to for a justified war is that it must be the last resort after all peaceful measures have been exhausted.
William Pfaff asks in his article: "How did the United States get itself into this situation?" He points out that the American ultimatum and the deployment of so many troops, military equipment and forces to the area have placed them in a position now where they feel they cannot withdraw without losing face.
One knows that one of the very basic tenets of negotiation is that the top man does not make ultimatums at the very beginning of the resolution of the conflict. The President of the United States or the President of Iraq never says at the very beginning that this is the ultimatum for solving the crisis, so that neither side can back out, so that there is no door to escape by.
William Pfaff says that the American ultimatums and the deployment of so large an American and international force have created conditions with gross built-in penalties should Washington change course. That is the problem. They have themselves so far committed to war down the road that now they feel they would more or less embarrass themselves to back down. Again, Pfaff analyses that particular policy of the United States. He states:
That puts the United States in the position of justifying immediate war to redeem its own unconsidered commitments.
But he says: "The critical moral commitment lies here. The Bush administration should never have put the United States into this position. However, it does little good to say that now we are where we are... Intellectual failure, is also a moral issue. Leaders are elected on their claim to know what they are doing. In this case they didn't know what they were doing."
The President of the United States and the administration of the United States, in making those ultimatums and in committing so many troops at an early stage of the situation, put themselves into a position now where they make war almost inevitable and they are trying to justify
it after the fact. Unfortunately this government is backing them all the way on that particular effort.
It is true that the Security Council approved resolution 678. It is interesting, when we look at that particular vote, to see that such a wide diversity of countries actually came together in approving that resolution, countries such as the Soviet Union, France, China-


An hon. member:: Not China.


William Warren Allmand: My colleague says: "Not China". It abstained. It certainly did not vote against it. It almost passed unanimously. It was not vetoed. There were only two dissenting votes by countries that did not have a veto.
In any case, it is true that they got that approval, but once again the fact that this group of nations approved of that resolution does not mean it is fully in accordance with the United Nations charter.
As my leader pointed out this morning, when we look at the key words in the resolution, it states that the Security Council authorizes member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area. It is authorizing member states to do all those things. It is authorizing the United States, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt as individual states to take what action they believe "all necessary" means, including war, to uphold and implement Security Council resolution 660 and to restore international peace and security in the area.
As we asked in the previous debate, what is meant by the area? Does this mean invading Israel, Lebanon, or Egypt? What does it mean to restore peace and security in the area?
It was a very wide open resolution. We voted against that resolution in this House at that time which would have supported this U.N. resolution because we said that it was too early, that sanctions had not been given enough time, and that diplomatic initiatives had not been given enough time.
January 15, 1991

I want to make clear that we do not support the actions of Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Kuwait. We voted for the first government resolution early in the fall which condemned that attack on Kuwait and asked the Iraqis to withdraw from Kuwait. We also supported the economic sanctions and the military backup of the economic sanctions. We still support those resolutions and we still condemn Saddam Hussein for his attack on Kuwait, but we do not believe that war is the answer at this time.
Again I get to the major issue which I thought was referred to in a very convincing way by the leader of this party this morning when he said that the resolution which should be before this House, if the government were really being honest with the Canadian people, should be a resolution which determines whether or not we should go to war with the United States against Iraq. That is the question that is to be decided. That is the question that was decided in the U.S. Congress. That is what was debated in the U.S. Congress. They made a decision, a very close split decision, in which both the House of Representatives and the Senate approved supporting the Government of the United States in taking military action against Iraq. That is not what we are debating in this House, but it is what we should be debating.
The resolution that the government put before this House that we support the United Nations, is a very general, vague sort of resolution. It does not say anything. It does not deal with the real issue. The amendment to the resolution that we have put to the House makes it very clear that while we condemn Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait and while we support the economic sanctions, we will not support an offensive war at this time against Iraq. It is too early and the economic sanctions have not been given enough time to take effect and diplomatic initiatives have not been given enough time to work.
One of the nations that supported resolution 678 at the Security Council was France. From my point of view President Mitterrand made very constructive proposals that might resolve this issue. They were rejected out of hand by the United States and Great Britain and it seems by Canada as well, because we have not heard from Canada on that particular point. But they certainly have not come to the defence of Mitterrand and the French proposals.
Government Orders
Again to refer to the charter of the United Nations wherein we are supposed to pursue all diplomatic and all non-military methods before we go to war, we should have given the French proposals at least a chance. The United States and Britain say that they cannot support the French proposals because they link the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Palestinian territories. I think that is unfortunate. I do not accept the point that Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait because he wanted to help the Palestinians. I do not accept that for a minute. The fact of the matter is that part of the difficulties in the Middle East is involved with the situation in the Palestinian occupied territories which have been occupied for a very long time, contrary to UN resolutions, without much being done. On the other side, most Arab states do not recognize Israel which is called for in UN resolutions as well. Wrong on both sides. That has been left outstanding for years and years. There have been no economic sanctions and there has been no suggestion of military action to resolve the situation.
While I do not like the fact that this is linked to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, I do believe that the reality of the situation suggests to me that if we want to solve this matter in a peaceful way we should at least pursue President Mitterrand's proposals. We should at least give serious attention to the French proposals. I am saddened by the fact that they were rejected so quickly by the Americans and by the British.
When I listened to the Prime Minister this morning, I thought for a moment I was listening to a new version of Dr. Strangelove. The Prime Minister in analysing the situation said: "Well, it is true that there will be risks if we go to war with the Americans and there will be casualties but, for the sake of principle, it is necessary perhaps that we accept these casualties." What principle, Madam Speaker? What is the principle that Canadians, Americans, and other young men from many countries will die for in this particular situation that could not be resolved by waiting out the sanctions?
If the Prime Minister was living in the 13th or 14th century and he decided to go to war with President Bush, both he and President Bush would have to get on their horses and lead the troops into battle like Henry V did in the Battle of Agincourt and so on.

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: That is a good idea.


William Warren Allmand: He would have to put his own life on the line with all the men behind him. But, no, we have a situation where politicians, diplomats and generals decide to go to war and risk the lives of a lot of young men who do not know what the issues are all about while they sit in their comfortable offices in the capitals of the world.
As I listened to the Prime Minister this morning say that there may be a few casualties, I thought this is the new Dr. Strangelove.
I see that my time is coming to an end, but I want to make a final point. War is not a romantic escapade. It means the destruction of many innocent lives and it leaves its scars on families, nations and environments for generations to come.
Everything possible must be done to avoid war. In this case that has not happened. Everything possible has not been pursued. If we really honour the United Nations charter then more effort has to be made in pursuing non-military solutions. It is the government, not the opposition, that does not trust the United Nations.


Marie Gibeau: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace a question. Five and a half months ago, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and that is when the war started, if he wants to use this expression. More recently, former hostages told us that a week before their release fresh eggs were available on the free market in Kuwait and Iraq. Newspapers revealed that military equipment
made in Germany would also be delivered to Saddam Hussein in the weeks to come.
Canada has played a key role in the application of sanctions. Navy personnel on board our three ships intercepted almost 1,600 ships, in other words, they have done more than 25 per cent of the work, while accounting for only about 10 per cent of all troops deployed to control sanctions.
A while ago, I heard some opposition members say that we could control all transborder exchanges and material transfers by way of satellites. I want to ask to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace how he sees the problem, what are the means he would propose to control and prevent smuggling going on right now between Iran and Iraq, and how he would protect the borders, between Iran and Iraq and between Syria and Iran, when we have absolutely no right over these territories. We know that these countries have borders that are absolutely impossible to secure completely. We have an extraordinary example of this in the fact that Canada and United States have signed the most perfect treaties to prevent drug circulation between our countries, but our borders are absolutely impossible to control. How would he manage, personally, to do it over there?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member will have to wait until a little later today to answer these questions.
It being midnight, pursuant to the order made previously during this sitting, the House stands adjourned until today at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at midnight.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 16,1991