1991-01-17

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: Statements by ministers.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, seeing no minister rise, I want to clarify a matter with the government House leader. Is it the government's intention that on appropriate days the Minister of National Defence will be making statements to keep the House and the people of Canada apprised of Canada's developments in the Persian Gulf?
It seems this would be an appropriate way, and perhaps the most simple way, to keep Canadians briefed on what is happening.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of National Defence has offered briefings to both parties this morning.
It would be my intention to discuss with the House leader of the New Democratic Party, as well as the opposition House leader, a means by which, on a daily basis, briefings could be held with appropriate representatives as well as to look at some mechanism whereby all members of Parliament could receive daily information on events in the Middle East. Perhaps it would be more appropriate if we had those discussions in private as the morning progresses and we can reach some mutually satisfactory arrangements.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders provide that every day a minister may make a statement to the House. I would have thought that the government, considering the seriousness of the situation, would be willing to come and give a summary of the situation, not only for the benefit of the House and its members but also for Canadians. I do not see why we have to sit down and negotiate arrangements beyond that.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Liberal caucus did indeed receive the offer of a briefing on the situation by the Minister of National Defence, to be given at 11.30 a.m. I thought it was possible for all members of my caucus to be there. However, it is impossible, Mr. Speaker, to be there today, since we are here in the House. Could I ask the minister to give us the assurance that every day there will be a minister's statement on the situation, a situation that is so important to us?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as we determine the appropriateness of communicating, not only with members of Parliament, as the government House leader has indicated, but also the people of Canada on a regular basis, the suggestion that perhaps a ministerial statement would be one way. There are other ways perhaps as well to apprise Canadians of the situation as it evolves.
These are very tense times, tense also in the House. Since we have arranged briefings for the caucuses later this morning at a time when the House is sitting-in a sense to our surprise-we need an assurance that the government would not produce any dilatory motions or

January 17, 1991
Routine Proceedings
anything that would upset the normal flow of the House while, presumably, the Liberal caucus and the New Democratic caucus are being briefed by a representative of the Department of National Defence.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no difficulty at all in giving my assurances. As the debate proceeds, it is solely for the purposes of providing members on all sides, and independent members also, an opportunity to get their views on the record. There will be no dilatory motions or an attempt to take advantage of the fact that membership on the other side may be light because of the briefings that are going on.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, presumably we are going to continue the debate in the House prior to the opposition parties being briefed by the Department of National Defence. Would it not seem more reasonable in terms of an informed debate for us to suspend the sitting for a couple of hours so that-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to make a case for the most informed, intelligent debate possible and that requires information. I realize the government has had an opportunity to be briefed, presumably by the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister. We have not. I am simply making a case to my friends opposite that this is a very critical moment.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am taking some offence at the laughter with regard to this proposal, Mr. Speaker. It is a serious suggestion to my hon. friend, the government House leader, that we consider suspending this session for two hours-goodness, what is going to be discussed for the next two hours is not going to be necessarily earth shattering, I suspect-to allow the opposition to be briefed and then commence the debate immediately after Question Period.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, and we have had these discussions in private, I would like to take advantage of this time to provide opportunities for those members, both on our side and independent members, to put their views on the record. Again I repeat, members have my assurance that during that period of time there will be no attempt by anybody on this side of the House to take advantage of limited
numbers on the other side with any dilatory motions. That assurance is given.
I think we can proceed and provide this period of time for members who wish to get their views on the record and I would suggest that we proceed in that manner.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I happened to hear that briefing sessions were offered by the Minister of National Defence to two caucuses. Does this mean the sessions were available to all members? I find it hard to understand, considering the fact that it is now 11.10 a.m. and the briefing was supposed to be for 11.30 a.m., why none of us was informed.
Mr. Speaker, all partisanship aside, I think we should realize that there are now a number of independent members in the House, and if co-operation and good will are to exist in a forum that is so faithful to tradition in times of crisis and war, I should hope the government would able to show a little more sensitivity and co-operation.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the hon. member that I will certainly discuss with him and with the Minister of National Defence the provision of briefings for all members. That was not the intention. The intention was to have the briefings in a different atmosphere than in the adversarial system we have in the House. In so doing, hon. members could be apprised of all of the information available. This institution, because of its adversarial nature and what have you is frequently not the best place in which we could have those briefings. That was the intent, nothing more than that.
I will talk to the hon. member, and I am sure that arrangements can be made to ensure that he and other independent members who are interested are provided with the same sort of briefing that will be transmitted to the other caucuses.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, with respect, our message is clear: All members of this House are entitled to this information. I fully agree with the hon. member for Shefford that, to obtain that information, we can use a provision of the Standing Orders that allows the minister to come and make a statement.

This morning we asked-it was not offered-for a briefing session by someone in authority in the government, so that we could be informed as government members were informed in caucus. They have information we do not have, Mr. Speaker. It is unfair to have a debate when someone has all the information and others do not.
All we asked was for the sitting to be suspended until 2 p.m, so that Liberal, NDP, independent and other members could obtain the information available. That is not too much to ask, Mr. Speaker, but the answer was no.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my proposal last night was that we should have these discussions among ourselves prior to suspension. That did not happen because of the request of the opposition that we suspend.
We are now here in session this morning. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, we carry on. We can have the kinds of discussions I offered to have last night with opposition House leaders and anybody else.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member for Burnaby- Kingsway is rising. Given what I am going to say, it may not be necessary for other members to get into this debate. I would ask the attention of the House.
The situation that we are in today is that, as a consequence of consent of all parties-all of it being sought last evening-we adjourned until 11 o'clock today. We are now, according to the rules of this place, in Routine Proceedings. The exchange that has just taken place may well have been helpful but it is certainly unusual at this point in Routine Proceedings.
I am bound by the rules, as are we all, and, in the absence of consent or some kind of arrangement, my obligation is to continue with Routine Proceedings until Routine Proceedings are completed. I want everyone to understand that, unless some arrangement is made for something different to happen, I will call Government Orders and the hon. member for Kitchener will have the floor. Now that is the procedural position that we are in.
Routine Proceedings
Given the fact that there seems to be some disagreement among members as to what we might or might not do, if Routine Proceedings or other things later on today are to be changed, I would ask the co-operation of hon. members to let me proceed with Routine Proceedings.
Members may want to have discussions. The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway may very well want to have those discussions, but I must say that there should be some limit now on what is beginning to turn into a debate and getting well beyond a point of order. I will hear the hon. member very briefly.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
I wanted to raise a very serious matter that certainly flows from the previous discussion and that is with respect to the right of members of the House to be informed in a serious way about what is happening in this very, very serious war.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member makes a point probably which is agreed to by all other hon. members, but as I said, if I am going to indulge one hon. member, I will have to indulge other hon. members.
I think that it is appropriate now to seek the co-operation of the House and to let me proceed with Routine Proceedings. Members can discuss this matter among themselves. I am not so sure that, at this point, anything is to be gained by negotiating across the floor of the House, at least for a few minutes.
I intend to proceed with Presenting Reports from Inter-parliamentary Delegations.


STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to committees, if I may, just very briefly.
I have just learned that there is a strong possibility that the commitment that was made earlier for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence to appear before the Standing Committee on External Affairs this afternoon may be denied. Surely, Mr. Speaker, Canadians and members of the House are entitled to be briefed by the Minister-

January 17, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The chairman of the committee has asked the Chair if he could be recognized to respond to that problem. It might solve the whole thing.


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let that go by.
Yes, as chairman, I have asked the opposition critics whether they wish to proceed with this afternoon's meeting. They have said they wish to. I have advised them, and I think it is entirely proper to advise them, that I have been advised by ministers that under the circumstances they may be compelled to be at other places in these circumstances.
I would assume from what was said last night in this House that, if ministers advise us under the circumstances that are before us in this terrible crisis they may have other obligations at a specific moment in time, we would be understanding in this crisis.


Mr. Speaker:: I know hon. members will realize that this is not a matter in which the Chair can intervene, at least not at this point.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners who point out that most of the nations involved in the UN coalition are not involved with offensive actions against Iraq or Iraqi forces in Kuwait.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to use all its ability possible to encourage the government to not continue to commit Canadian Armed Forces to an offensive action.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island -Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to present a petition today signed by a large number of individuals at a peace demonstration in Powell River on the weekend.
The petitioners ask that the Canadian Armed Forces not be involved in the war in Iraq. They point out that the Prime Minister, in committing the armed forces, enjoys the opposition of 88 per cent of Canadians. The
majority of Canadians do not want this action undertaken. The government should adhere to the wishes of Canadians and have the troops removed from the theatre.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several hundred people representing, I am sure, millions of Canadians who are appalled by the action that we are currently engaged in.
The petitioners call for Canada to continue to use its forces to enforce the sanctions which the UN had declared, to declare its absolute commitment to a peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict, and to oppose any military action against Kuwait.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and obligation to present on behalf of petitioners from the Fraser Valley a petition which calls upon Parliament to implement the results of the equal pay study and end wage discrimination in the federal Public Service.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have to present a petition from a number of Canadians who lay out quite a lengthy list of suggestions. Essentially, they are calling upon Parliament to declare its absolute commitment to a peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured once again to rise in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition from the constituents of Kent.
As a last ditch effort, the petitioners humbly pray that the government axes the dastardly GST tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 282 and 431.
January 17, 1991


Mrs. Maheu: Was a meeting on the subject of race relations held in Toronto on March 31, 1990, organized by the office of the Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship) and, if so (a) who was invited to attend (b) who issued the invitations (c) which of those invited have held any order-in-council, ministerial appointments under the purview of the government since April 1,1985 and, in each case, what appointments (d) did representatives from the minister's office and the department attend the meeting and, if so, which ones (e) who asked for the meeting to be held (f) what were the (i) purpose (ii) objectives (iii) terms of reference (iv) agenda (v) outcome of the meeting (g) what amount did the meeting cost, including (i) travel (ii) accommodation (iii) exempt staff (iv) officials (h) are any follow-up activities planned and, if so (i) what are they (ii) what are their objectives (iii) what are their projected costs?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Yes, a meeting on the subject of race relations was held in Toronto on March 31, 1990, organized by the office of the Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship).
(a)	Persons invited to the Focus Group Meeting:
Aziz Khaki Yvonne Blackwood Dr. Karen Mock Fo Niemi
Kamala-Jean Gopie Dr. Suzanne Birks Alai Coker Valmond Romilly Benjamin Teitelbaum Isobel Grayston Alain Jean-Bart
(b)	The chairperson of the Focus Group Meeting, Dr. Ralph Agard.
(c)	Dr. Ralph Agard, former member of the Advisory Committee on the Employment of Visible Minorities.
Aziz Khaki, member of the Advisory Committee on the Employment of Visible Minorities.
Dr. Karen Mock, chairperson of the Canadian Multiculturalism Advisory Committee.
Valmond Romilly, member of the Canadian Multiculturalism Advisory Committee.
(d)	Dennison Moore-chief of staff-Secretary of State and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship).
Routine Proceedings
John Dennison-senior policy advisor for race relations to the Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship).
Ajit Mehat-director, race relations Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada
(e)	Participants of the Focus Group Meeting.
(f)	(i), (ii) and (iii)
Discussion of consultant's report on the feasibility of establishing a Race Relations Network.
(iv)	Round table discussion of report.
(v)	Need for further discussion and fine tuning on the workings of a Race Relations Network.
(g)	$4,601.42
(h)	Yes
(i)	Larger consultation of concerned groups.
(ii)	To examine the findings of the Focus Group and to determine if a Race Relations Network is needed.
(iii)	Not applicable.


Mr. Harvard: Does the government intend to assume the financial obligations of World University Services of Canada, such as (a) the cost involved in the return of Canadian volunteers, (b) the payment to them of an annual bonus?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: The government has not assumed the financial obligations of WUSC. All assets and liabilities of WUSC are being administered by the Receiver. CIDA has undertaken to ensure that activities and commitments under projects and programs it has been funding with WUSC continue to be carried out. As for Canadians working overseas under WUSC's volunteer program, their agreements with WUSC will continue to be honored, including return to Canada on completion of assignment and any other payments stipulated in their agreements.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 404 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 404 be deemed to have been made an Order for return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Wappel: Since November 21,1988 has the government given any funding to (a) the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada (b) Serena Canada and, if so (i) when (ii) in what amount (iii) one-time or sustaining (iv) for what purpose (v) by way of grant or loan (with full loan particulars) (vi) with what system of accountabililty in place?
Return tabled.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, January 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
And on the motion of Mrs. Collins:
That this question be now put.
Hon. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, colleagues and fellow Canadians, speaking in a debate on an occasion like this invites obviously some perspective on not only the present with which we are being bombarded with instant communication, but also the past and the future. In the moments given to me I would like to reflect on the past five falls when I have been a member of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
During those five years I have seen dramatic changes from the intractability of the cold war period, through the gradual move and thawing in relationships, to the
point where in the last two years resolutions about world order and world peace have been jointly moved by the Soviet Union and the United States.
Many of us in the House and many working for peace across the country have been dreaming of the day of the new UN. Dreams that were once only that suddenly have come to fruition. We have begun to see the possibility of the UN being a forum for conflict resolution. This has suddenly become a reality.
But this change in the UN has come suddenly, almost overnight. Alvin Toffler, writing almost a decade ago in his book The Third Wave, warned us that we needed new institutions and processes as we moved into the 1990s. He anticipated that in the third millennium our society would need new machinery, a new wave forward.
In my constituency office in Waterloo, from across Waterloo region and across Canada, I have received, just as all members of Parliament have, calls, letters, and delegations from schools and universities. Our young people, particularly those age 13 through to 20, have been showing a tremendous concern about these issues. Their message is that they are disappointed and upset that we do not have the machineries in place and that we are back to using old models of war and violence to settle international disputes. At the University of Waterloo in my riding, in Conrad Grebel College under the Menno-nite aegis, the Centre for Peace Studies has been trying to develop models as to how we could move forward.
What are the lessons that we can learn as we pray for a quick end to this conflict, a recovery period, and a resumption of the efforts to bring about an interdependent world community?
Obviously had we had these machineries in place, Canadian troops in the gulf today would have been serving under blue berets and the UN flag. The fact is that the Military Staff Committee of the United Nations has not been instituted. It has rusted out over the last 40 years of east-west confrontation and we have not had machinery in place.
The fact is that the force in the gulf, while American led, is under UN mandate. There was no other machinery there present in order to follow up the UN will. The United Nations itself does not have a capacity to mount a force. And so there never was a realistic expectation that the UN could have responded to the invasion of Kuwait
January 17, 1991

without designating a lead role to one of its member states.
The tragic events that we are now witnessing remind us that we know how to make war, but we do not know how to make peace. We have very few models for peacemaking. Canada has led in peacekeeping, but peacemaking is a new art, and one that surely calls to all of us in the light of the present situation.
The lesson of this crisis is the need for new mechanisms, possibly the establishment of a permanent UN force. Sir Brian Urquhart, the former Under Secretary General of the United Nations says that the lessons of the gulf war call for, first of all, the development of a military staff committee to respond to expected emergencies and, second, an emergency fund large enough to support immediate protective or peacekeeping efforts.
These are the kinds of initiatives, surely, that Canada will want to be looking at seriously as we seek a cease-fire and an end to hostilities in the gulf and a move to new models.
Today, as we meet here in the House of Commons in Ottawa, and as the world's attention is riveted to the gulf, at the United Nations in New York, delegates representing 118 nations are debating proposals to convert the existing partial test ban treaty into a comprehensive test ban treaty.
The partial test ban treaty was signed in 1963 by American President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Khrus-chev. As members will know, this bans all nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, in outer space and underwater, but not underground.
Parliamentarians from all parties in this House and from 38 legislatures around the world, in an organization Parliamentarians for Global Action, have been playing a substantial role in encouraging the convening of the UN conference. For two weeks now delegations have been in New York. Despite the lessons and the threat of nuclear capacity, chemical and biological weapons, on the part of Iraq, this conference seems only likely to agree that it may meet again some time in the future.
In light of Canada's support for the UN and the effort under way now, the evident need for constructive multilateral dialogue and collective security, and the develop-
Govemment Orders
ment of the chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons by Iraq, it is appropriate and hopeful that the UN is gathered, seeking to move an end to nuclear testing.
So, in the House today, I ask, as we seek peace in the gulf, why is Canada prepared to vote not only against the amendment clause calling for a comprehensive test ban treaty, but against efforts to bring the nations back again to try next year to move the conference forward? I have asked both privately and publicly that the secretary of state review the instructions he sent to our Canadian delegation at New York and invite them to take a constructive effort to end the nuclear threat. Surely the lessons of Iraq are evidence of the need for Canadian leadership in this area.
Let me raise one other issue that is in the hearts of many Canadians, particularly from our multicultural communities which have their relatives in Third World countries. One of the very dramatic, and yet downplayed, elements of this crisis has been the impact on the so-called Third World. We have seen the floods of refugees, but we have not seen as visibly the effect on the economies of already debt-ridden countries. On behalf of the House, I have had the opportunity to chair a subcommittee which has reported to our external affairs committee on the debt crisis. We have tried to underline, in an all-party report, the urgency of the situation.
This report was tabled before the gulf crisis, before the standing committee heard from President Mugabe of Zimbabwe about the effect of the crisis on his people and before the Interagency United Nations Committee on African Recovery met in Ottawa last month, reporting that those economies, already bankrupt, are suffering in terms of all of the basic services such as health care and education. In a country concerned about AIDS, the epidemic of AIDS across Africa continues to move dramatically because governments are without any capacity to offer services or help. These developing countries now have a debt that exceeds $1.3 trillion and the indebtedness of these countries threatens all countries.
In conclusion, I would like to make three proposals for those of us who wish to work for peace now in the gulf and for peace in the future. I propose that Canada convene a high-level political conference to look at what mechanisms should be put in place to permit the UN to

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
act more effectively. This conference should relaunch "the spirit of San Francisco", the lofty idealism of the framers of the UN charter. Second, I call upon our government to vote for the comprehensive test ban this week in New York. Third, I urge the government, in the light of the human cost to women and children and others in the Third World, that as we prepare our budget, we maintain CIDA's budget, our development assistance to those least able to help themselves.
Hopefully, out of this agonizing time we can advance concrete proposals for both strengthening the United Nations, to which we are all committed, and world peace.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Waterloo for his speech because it reflects, I know, much more than five years of work that he has been doing in these matters for peace and for disarmament for the countries which are burdened with what we call the Third World debt and for aid to the needy.
I fully support the question that he has launched in this House as to why Canada opposes an amendment to the partial test ban agreement that would convert it into a comprehensive test ban agreement. I agree with him that had we got such a comprehensive test ban agreement before, at least the present dreadful situation in the gulf would be a little less dreadful.
I would like to ask him what he thinks about the situation in the gulf where it is reported that more than 1,000 nuclear warheads are sitting, mostly on American warships, but not all of them. We do not know whether Saddam ever produced any. We are fairly sure that he did not, and that his capability to do that may have been destroyed.
We do know two worrisome things. One is that there have been accidents with nuclear warheads. All the countries that possess them have had experience of accidents. Second, the concentration of nuclear warheads in such a small area could increase the danger. We know that last night the President of the United States made a statement that is rather open-ended. He said: "It is not like Vietnam. This time we are not going into the fight with one hand tied behind us." He did not explain how he means that one hand was tied behind him in Vietnam, but for many people we do know that there was talk of using nuclear weapons in Vietnam and that
fortunately that possibility was rejected by the country that could have used them, the United States.
My question to the hon. member is, has his government asked for a commitment from the United States and the others who possess the nuclear weapons that are in the gulf, a guarantee, that under no circumstances will they be used offensively in the gulf?


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina for raising an important issue. The government has assured the foreign affairs committee, of which I am a member, that nuclear weapons are not to be used in the gulf.
One of the arguments and concerns about the importance of taking military action was to prevent the further development of nuclear weapons on the part of Iraq. Therefore, if this is the argument for force at this moment, and many of us had hoped it would not come to this, surely logic follows that we should be seeking a comprehensive test ban at the United Nations.
Canada has through the years had this as an objective of our foreign policy. But the question is of putting it into overdrive rather than going step-by-step, and responding with 118 countries which recognize that if Iraq soon has these, what about India and Pakistan? What about Argentina and Brazil? What about a world loaded with nuclear weapons? Into which corners will Canadians be called time after time as regional conflicts break out? What about a situation where the UN does not have machinery to respond to these and we go at them in an ad hoc way? So, part and parcel of the order that we all seek in our world is to have renewed machinery, to see that we use the UN in a dialogue way, in a treaty-making way, in a negotiation way, and that we start today, even as we participate in the gulf, with dynamic leadership in the UN to see that this kind of incident does not occur again and that we redouble our efforts.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The period for question and answers is now expired. There was a five-minute period of question and answer. Resuming debate.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, I think it is fair to say that most members of the House today are feeling somewhat uneasy and concerned about what is going on around us. Yesterday, when I was prepared to speak on the motion before the House, I was having a great deal of difficulty. I was concerned about a
January 17, 1991

lot of things that I will not mention today because it is not the time to do it. So, when I was told, on short notice, that this debate would be resumed, I had to sit down and cleanse my thoughts because events have taken a decided turn. I have to wonder whether or not this House right now has a hell of a lot of relevancy for Canadians. We are sitting here after Canadian troops have been engaged in a war. We are still debating a motion which was put before this House, which I said at the beginning of the debate, was an intellectually dishonest motion.


An hon. member:: That's right.


An hon. member:: Right on.


An hon. member:: A fraud.


Ronald MacDonald: I will try my level best not to be partisan here because it is not a place to be partisan, but I think the people of Canada have to question the role of parliamentarians, of every political party, and of the relevancy of this institution.
We were on the brink of war up until yesterday, with every heart, every mind and every soul in Canada praying and hoping for a peaceful resolution. That is what everybody here wants and it is not a matter of party line. I know my colleagues in this House. Not one of them sought war. But the debate did not take place.
We still have this motion put forward and I am supposed to speak to it today. The motion talks about UN sanctions, UN resolutions and all this kind of thing. In actual fact, Canadians as well as members on all sides of the House were hanging by their fingernails when we should have been debating the potential role of Canada in the Middle East conflict. That is what we should have been doing, but we did not do it.
We were elected by our people to govern this country, in opposition or in government. I think one of the most important decisions we will ever make is whether or not we as parliamentarians send people to war for whatever reason: good, bad or otherwise. We were not debating it; we were debating some motion that had no relevancy.
I have received more calls from more people in my riding who are absolutely disgusted with what we have done in this place. They wanted to know why we could not for once drop the partisanship. They wondered why in the name of goodness, when we are dealing with life
Government Orders
and death issues, we could not for once have a real debate here.
It is not a debate on GST, which may be important. We all wound ourselves up for that great debate, did we not? It is not a debate about taxation or about fiscal policy. It is a debate that has the real and irrevocable consequences that somebody, because of our decision, may lose his life or could come back injured. It is not something we can change, once the decision is made.
We are at war today. Suffice it be for me to talk about the frustration felt by me and I think by every member of Parliament over our inability to control those circumstances and situations that happened thousands of miles from here.
Our troops are at war. I and my colleague from Halifax come from an area that has a strong military tradition. As I have said before, men and women who were first sent over by this government to participate in enforcing the sanctions against Iraq primarily live in this area. They may not be from our area, but we have them based there. This is where the Canadian navy on the east coast is based. They have contributed greatly to the economy in our area and to the community.
When the sterile debates about what goes on take place, it is hard for me to raise myself above it and just say it is a matter of right or wrong, because it is a matter of people. I see them every day. When I go shopping, I see them.
What we need to do now is to understand truly what these people are doing for our country and for the Parliament. They have chosen to serve and are serving proudly. They are in the Middle East. Their families are terrified. Their kids are scared. But they understand that this was an eventuality when they joined the Canadian Armed Forces. They are serving proudly. I have talked to some of the families this morning. They are happy to see for once that the Canadian Parliament is unanimous in supporting the activities of those men and women in the Middle East.
I think it is a time for us all to reflect. It is a time for us to reflect on the impact of our decisions here in this place. We do not know how long this war is going to take. We hope it is over now. We pray that the loss of life is minimal. We want our men and women of the Canadian

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Armed Forces, who are doing a job for us and for the world, to come home safe and to come home now.
This problem in the Middle East is not going to be solved by bullets, although the immediate problem may be. It will not be solved by bullets, by missiles being lobbed at each other or by blood being spilled all through the Persian Gulf. The war has started, but the process of peace must also be started now.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ronald MacDonald: Men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, in support of the Americans, are playing a role in the gulf and they are serving proudly. It was a decision of this government, for which we all must share some responsibility collectively, and we do. This government has a responsibility at this point in time not to sit back and wait for military activity to bring a resolution to this crisis.
The government must not stop until every stone is unturned and until ever square centimetre of possible common ground is explored so that the United Nations can progress from this point on and that true lasting political peace, not merely militarily imposed peace, is found in the Middle East. This is the great challenge to parliamentarians.
We all woke up this morning at little stunned, I think. I did not think when I ran for election, nor did anybody in this place, that we would have the issues before us that we have had. My goodness, we have had the Canadian government face to face with our native peoples in Oka. I thought it was pretty traumatic. We have debated things like the abortion bill and Meech Lake. We are wondering if this country has to political will to stay together. Each and every time these issues came up, I think we all sat back and said we never thought we were going to be elected to sit and participate in these big decisions.
This is the biggest decision we have ever faced. This government has to find ways, and our party will support it as it tries, for peace through the United Nations. We would like to see this government, in the finest tradition of Canada, be innovative, be creative, be the bridge builders and find political solutions where none seem to be.
We have a tremendously strong tradition, and it is not one we should let fall now. It is a tradition of trying to find a common interest. It is a tradition of pursuing peace at almost any cost. My colleague who spoke earlier talked about the United Nations and the new world order. Think about the tumultuous times we live in. We have been celebrating over the last year the thaw in the cold war. We saw the Berlin wall fall. I guess maybe we thought everything was going to be easy from this point on.
Do you know what we found out, Madam Speaker? The easy part was the cold war. The hard part is trying to establish a new world order. Canada has a role to play. Its role is to redefine in the United Nations the acceptable parameters and the rules of the game by which we now must play in order to ensure sanity as this world changes dramatically. What are the rules of engagement? Surely to goodness, force has to be the final option that is used. This is new territory for us and we must pursue it vigorously. We must participate and we must initiate as a government and as a country.
In the coming days, there will be much debate in this Chamber. There will be debate about the resources given to the Canadian Armed Forces. There will be many questions asked about the role of the Canadian Armed Forces. There will be pleas to the Canadian government, in the finest tradition of Pearson, to get involved and find those political solutions and to do it as quickly as we possibly can. There will be accolades for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who are serving us so proudly in the Persian Gulf now.
I would hope that during the course of the debate we do not lose sight of the major tasks ahead of us. The major task ahead of us is to stop the war, stop the guns, and stop the bullets in the Middle East. The major task ahead of us is to ensure that Saddam Hussein is driven out of Kuwait. The task ahead of us is to make sure that Saddam Hussein, who has terrorized the Middle East, does not have the capability to do it again. The task ahead of us is to ensure that a true and lasting peace is attained in the Middle East. They are big tasks, but I know that Canada is up to the job.
It is going to be up to parliamentarians to shed a little bit of the partisanship we all too often see in here. This is not a partisan issue. Let me make it very clear: the position of the Liberal Party is that, if we had our way, sanctions should have been given more time to work-
January 17, 1991

and we still firmly believe it-and that bloodshed and force had to be the very last options.
But now a decision has been made and circumstances have overtaken this strange debate and this funny motion or unreal, surreal motion we have before us now. Events have overtaken it. Each and every member of Parliament must support those individuals who have been ordered by the Government of Canada to participate. We must make sure that Canadians in every part of this land do not turn their television sets back over and get disgusted once again and that the level of cynicism, which is probably justified against politicians and parliamentarians right across this country, does not rise.
I for one member of Parliament am probably as partisan as anybody in this House. I know this comes as a great shock to you, Madam Speaker, but I also know there is a time to do one's duty. This is such a time. We can change the opinion Canadians have about this place. We have a real opportunity here to drop those phoney lines of party policy, party ideology, and party names and for once to work in the best interests of Canada and the world.
If we can achieve this, then perhaps we truly have changed something substantial. Perhaps we will start back on the road to making this place a relevant place for debate on behalf of Canadians. We will have all kinds of time for partisanship. We will have all kinds of time to score in Question Period because other issues still go on. Life does move on.
On issues such as this, I urge every one of my colleagues here not to grasp quickly and easily that tool of partisanship we use so effectively and to act truly in the interest of Canadians to find a resolution for this place. Maybe just for once, when we finish in this place, we can all go home and feel we have contributed to the well-being and the development and the future of this country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, this was an interesting speech. It largely echoes the words of the Prime Minister in attempting to enlist the entire House in the adventure he has laid out for Canadians in the Middle East.
Government Orders
I am surprised that the members would not have taken this opportunity to stand up and say to stop shooting and that this House does not feel there should be one more bullet fired in the Middle East. The objectives of the Americans have largely been achieved. They have smashed the military infrastructure of the Iraqis. Now the program becomes one of butchery. We hear reports of 150,000 casualties. Are we as Canadians going to participate in the butchery? Do you want our CF-18s participating in the same manner?
We do have another option other than the one the Prime Minister has laid out. We cannot join with him. It must stop. He should be standing in this House today calling on the American President to end it, to give the Iraqis a chance to consider the kind of wreckage that been visited on them and to surrender, and to begin to talk about a peace treaty that would see demilitarization and disarmament go on.
The hon. member could have stood in his place today and said that we as Canadians likely have dirty hands in creating that monster. Certainly the French sold them the nuclear reactor that began the task of building atomic bombs for the Iraqis; the West Germans sold them plants to build the chemical weapons that they would have visited on us. The Americans built them up as a weapon against Iran.
The member could have stood up and said that we need a longer term view, that we should stop the war today and be calling out to the American President that enough has been done. The infrastructure is smashed. Give them a chance for peace and negotiate a demilitarization of that region. We do not need to participate in butchery.
If that is the position of the Liberal Party, and that is the position of the Conservative Party, we do in fact divide.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I think that my hon. colleague has shown how easy it is to become too partisan so early in this debate.


Raymond John Skelly: End it today.


Ronald MacDonald: I hope that my colleague has listened to my remarks. There will be plenty of time to debate. There will be plenty of time for your

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
party, my party and the government to put their points forward.
But my God, there is a war on, and there are Canadians serving over there. Perhaps the hon. member could put his name on his caucus speaker's list, but at the current time I am trying to address what he has asked me. I would like to hear from him.
What I have said is clear. I did not have four days to get up and to give all the solutions that I think would help. I will have plenty of time for that. What I tried to do in my remarks was to give a message to the House of Commons. I did not come here to start debating whether or not I think the government has done the right thing. We have already debated that in this House. I brought a message. I would hope that if he did not hear me clearly, he would get the "blues" and read them. That is what we should be here for today-to stand united behind those individuals whom we have sent to the Middle East. I am talking about the Parliament of Canada.
What I did was appeal to this government and members on all sides of this House to find those peaceful solutions. I did not just talk about war. I talked primarily about peace. I talked about peace that probably would be better developed through less partisanship in this House and more co-operation for the sake of world order.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for what I thought was an outstanding speech today, a speech that I think sets the tone that all of us would be wise to adopt, given that the eyes and ears of Canadians are on us for as long as this debate continues.
The fact of the matter is that we are beyond a debate about whether or not Canadians ought to be involved in a war. We clearly said they should not be, but we are beyond that. War has begun. Canadian troops are now committed. Whether one agrees or disagrees, there is an action, a war theatre, that exists. I could not concur more with my friend that at this stage no member of Parliament should want to undermine those troops, those young Canadian men and women who have answered the call of their country. I am not suggesting any member of Parliament would want to do this.
As a young lady from St. John's who is in the forces was quoted yesterday, "I signed up. I signed on the dotted line. I am here. I will do my duty". I think we better think about that. I thought the leader of the NDP spoke well yesterday when she said, "no party has a licence on morality".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Brian Vincent Tobin: No party has a monopoly on morality and no member ought to question the morality-


An hon. member:: I think somebody did.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -or, Madam Speaker, should the intention of any member who speaks in this place from their bones, heart and soul be questioned.
I think the NDP member who just spoke from the province of British Columbia would do well to reflect upon the words of his leader. Then if he needs reinforcement, he should reflect again upon the words of my colleague for Dartmouth who just spoke in this House in an eloquent, responsible and very enlightened manner.
Members should know that this member comes from a constituency together with my colleague from Halifax, where a great many of the people who serve today in the gulf reside. He comes from a constituency where today, together with my colleague from Halifax-and a great many of those are former Newfoundlanders-a great many wives, and in some cases husbands and children, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters are waiting at home, glued to their television sets, not to this debate, but wondering whether or not our troops have been involved in battle, whether or not we have taken casualties, and whether or not their loved ones, God forbid, are involved. If we wrap our minds around that reality in this debate, I think we can erase and flush partisanship from this House. I thank my friend for his remarks.


Ronald MacDonald: I just want to offer a brief closing remark. I have a brother Paul who is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. He chose that career and he serves proudly. My father served in the Second World War and served proudly, as have other members of my family.
Quite clearly, what we have to understand is that soldiers do not make wars, politicians make wars. Like it or not, we are the politicians in the Canadian Parliament at this point in time, and those men and women who live in my riding are at war. They are serving this country proudly, and I am not for one second-and I could care less if anyone in this House likes it or dislikes it-am not
January 17, 1991

going to cheapen their commitment to this country by allowing the circus that normally happens here to take away from the importance of the decision that they made to serve this country because I think it would be an absolute shame. I for one will conduct myself for the rest of this debate with those things foremost in my mind.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member on his speech. I feel strongly as well about the importance of members of the House coming together in objectivity and in constructive debate. It is also important that we do not let hyprocrisy become the order of the day.
I have been extremely conscious in this debate of the charges of following the party line and subjugating myself to the will and whims of others. I would like to make it very clear that I stood throughout this debate with the government. In November, I spoke solidly in favour of the government's position and I continue to support that position.
I have some difficulty with the speech of the hon. member today. I applaud him for his position but I cannot quite accept the conversion to constructive nonpartisan performance. I witnessed his leader three days ago support a statement that said upon the outbreak of hostilities the Canadian forces should be withdrawn from the theatre of war. That is hardly an act of unity. Frankly, that is an act of belated hyprocrisy.


Ronald MacDonald: There was a debate taking place, and my hon. colleague full and well knows it. There was a debate taking place in this House about what would be the preferred option if we were in charge in this place-just give me a second, I have listened to you and perhaps you could listen to me.
Let us not try to change the record. The debate was about what we would do. As a party we said that we thought peace should be pursued through the continued enforcement of existing sanctions, that sanctions should have a greater chance to work. We thought that that should have been the role of Canada. We said if that was the role of Canada and if that was the stated policy of the Government of Canada-because that is what the stated
Government Orders
policy would have been if we were the Government of Canada-if hostilities broke out, Canadian forces should move back out of the immediate theatre of war. That is what we said. Don't try to twist our words on this. We lost the debate. Wake up and smell the roses. Last night war started and the Canadian forces are involved in that war. We lost the debate, and whether we like it not Canadian forces are there. The statements that I have made during my speech in response to the other questioners stand, and I will stand on those statements.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -Stouff-ville):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in this Chamber today on the most heart-wrenching issue that has been debated in many decades.
Last evening we heard the tragic news that Iraq has been attacked and war has broken out. Notwithstanding this sad news, I still want to participate in this historic debate, put my views on record and explain why I will, vote in favour of Motion 27 which reads:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
While I have made up my mind on the motion before this House, I am far from comfortable. As a matter of fact, I am uncomfortable. I am uneasy and I worry about the fact that many thousands of lives will be lost in this war.
I will be voting in favour of the motion before the House, but I would like to say that I reached this conclusion only after a difficult and exhausting thought process of examining all possible options. I have discussed the crisis with many people.
I have spoken with two families in the riding who have sons serving Canada in the Persian Gulf. Dr. Peter and Janet Van Nostrand's son John is serving on the HMCS Athabaskan. Mrs. Van Nostrand said that although she would prefer a peaceful solution, she believes the UN resolution must be honoured by Canada. She believes Saddam Hussein must be stopped.
Janet also said that she has a great deal of respect for our service people who have maintained good spirits throughout their ordeal. She also has great respect for

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
and confidence in our senior military officials directing this operation.
I have also heard the views of Harvey and Tina Meek of Markham. Their son Harvey is a jet pilot with 439 squadron in Qatar. Tina believes strongly that Canada should be involved. Like the Van Nostrands she, obviously, would have preferred a peaceful solution to have been found.
However, Mr. and Mrs. Meek believe Canada must honour its commitment to the UN resolution. Tina said Harvey has chosen this profession and is well-trained to do the job he has been asked to do. "He is an excellent pilot" said Tina "and is proud to have been chosen to go." Both Janet Van Nostrand and Tina Meek conveyed a strong sense of pride in their sons. They believe our service people should have the full support of all Canadians as they carry out their ominous responsibilities in this tragic war.
Last Sunday afternoon I attended a special prayer vigil for the Persian Gulf crisis. It was an ecumenical service organized by churches in the Stouffville area. Approximately 150 to 200 Christians were in attendance. We prayed for the leaders of all nations involved, including Saddam Hussein. We prayed for the military personnel and civilians on both sides of this conflict. We prayed regarding our own response to the prospects of war. Also, we prayed to celebrate Christ's sovereignty and Lordship.
Since Monday of this week I have had 23 concerned people in my riding call my constituency office in Unionville. Fifteen people believed that Canada should not be involved in an armed conflict and eight said that Canada should support United Nations' efforts to stop Saddam Hussein.
I, too, wanted a peaceful solution and I, too, did not want Canada to be involved in a war. I did not want John Van Nostrand and Harvey Meek to be involved in an armed conflict. I would have liked to have seen an absolute end to war on this planet. Mankind should be capable of achieving this.
In my view, the United Nations is the only vehicle or process through which world-wide peace can ultimately be achieved. When Kuwait was first invaded by Saddam Hussein last August, I understand that the United States
was on the verge of declaring war on Iraq and going it alone to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
Through the efforts and interventions of our Prime Minister, President George Bush was persuaded to act under the auspices of the United Nations.
The Iraqi issue has been the moment of truth for the United Nations. The usefulness of the League of Nations was dashed when Italy was allowed to invade Ethiopia in 1936 without a mobilized and co-ordinated effort by allied nations to force the Italian aggressors out.
Thanks to the end of the cold war and the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union's economic and military policies, we now have witnessed for the very first time the U.S.S.R. voting with the United States and other members of the UN Security Council to condemn, in effect, the actions of Saddam Hussein and take military action, if necessary, to drive the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. If the Security Council had not passed resolution 678,1 believe the value and purpose of the United Nations would have been permanently crippled.
We are witnessing the most remarkable chapter in the history of the United Nations. It will be a chapter which will send a strong statement to would-be aggressor nations for decades to come. I believe it will be a strong deterrent to the leader of any country which might consider attacking or invading another country. Such a leader can no longer assume that he would capitalize on having two of the world's superpowers on opposite sides of the conflict. Such a leader would have to be cognizant that in 1991 the U.S.S.R. and the United States voted in unison to condemn Saddam Hussein's brutal invasion of Kuwait and that on Wednesday, January 16, the United Nations' contingent attacked Iraq.
Over the past few weeks, like many Canadians, I have struggled with the question of whether sanctions would work. Only a few days ago, I thought that we should consider recommending an extension of the period for sanctions to work. However, I have been persuaded that with a tyrannical regime, such as that in place in Iraq, sanctions would not work. I believe Saddam Hussein and his army would have continued to be well fed. I also believe that thousands of average Iraqi citizens were undergoing grave hardships regarding lack of food, safe drinking water, medical supplies, and proper sanitation. However, there is not the remotest chance that these
January 17, 1991

people could have risen up and demanded that their leader reverse his position and pull out of Kuwait.
Saddam Elussein has carefully orchestrated his Iraqi invasion to be seen by his followers as a religious crusade. Saddam Hussein has also very cleverly fuelled the flames of hatred by the Iraqis against the United States of America.
We have, in Saddam Hussein, a stubborn, fanatical leader who I now believe would never have had the moral courage and wisdom to withdraw peacefully from Kuwait.
If sanctions had been allowed to continue, one has to ask what action Saddam Hussein would have been taking. He would certainly have had time to increase the mobilization of his men and equipment. As the right hon. Joe Clark said yesterday, there was some indication that the Iraqis were building an oil pipeline to the gulf. This would have made it possible to pour millions of gallons of oil into the gulf which would not only have created an environmental disaster, but, if torched, could have created a horrific holocaust. Also, more time would have permitted Saddam Hussein to build up his arsenal of chemical warfare and perhaps nuclear weapons.
I also would like to say a few words about Israel. Saddam Hussein has threatened to attack Israel and to establish a linkage with Kuwait and Israel. Israel has demonstrated a commendable restraint over the past few months. However, if the United Nations had not used force to stop Saddam Hussein, does anyone think he would have stopped with Kuwait? I do not.
All diplomatic efforts by many world leaders over many months did not yield results. Saddam Hussein summarily rejected every opportunity for a peaceful solution to the crisis. I thought he might change his mind. I prayed he would. But in the absence of any movement by Saddam Hussein, the United Nations forces decided to initiate armed conflict to free the citizens of Kuwait and protect the fundamental viability of the United Nations.
Such action will send a chilling message to the world that armed aggressive actions such as Saddam Hussein's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait will not be tolerated by member countries of the United Nations.
In closing, I pray that this war will end very soon and that Saddam Hussein will surrender quickly to minimize the loss of lives.
Government Orders


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, as always I listened very carefully to what the hon. member said, and I would Idee to ask him two very specific questions.
I would appreciate it if the hon. member would give us his views, quite frankly as always, on two proposals. It is a fact that when a war starts, we must also have people who are prepared to talk about peace, disengagement and cease-fire. We cannot just wage war. We also need people who will say how to stop the war. So what kind of diplomatic means will it take? Do we have any ideas? Do we have any suggestions? I have several that I would like to submit for comment to the hon. member. For instance, how about starting right now with representations to the United Nations, with suggestions for a plan that at the time was mentioned by Saddam Hussein himself, when he was otherwise engaged against Iran and shortly afterwards, concerning a conference on bacteriological, chemical and nuclear disarmament, in other words, to make this vast area which is the world's powder keg-The hon. member knows my thoughts on that. For 25 years I have been saying: It is going to explode. It's a powder keg, getting bigger all the time. Bigger and bigger.
Aside from Saddam Hussein, whom we condemn because of his invasion of Kuwait, does the hon. member believe that the time is ripe for considering the possibility of a conference on nuclear, bacteriological and chemical disarmament, involving all countries in the area, and I would include a friendly country, Israel, especially with respect to nuclear arms?
Second question: How long does he think it will take to call this international conference, to set aside all the hypocrisy and lies that prevent us from looking reality in the face, a real international conference, so that we can stop talking about the Middle East, about those incredible tragedies in Lebanon, the Golan heights, and the Gaza strip. Would the hon. member care to comment?


Bill Attewell: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. mem' ber. He has a long history and a great knowledge of the problems in that part of the world.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
I have no hesitation in wanting to support any initiative that would end the threat of nuclear weapons. I think we should embrace such an initiative. I would not know all the parameters or guidelines to put on such an initiative, but perhaps a new chapter will open up after this conflict which we are now in the middle of. Perhaps it will bring many more countries to the table to discuss exactly such a proposal.
Most of us here in the Chamber have children. I have five grandchildren and another one coming next month. This world needs global attention now. It needs global co-operation, specifically on the issue the hon. member brought forth.
How long will the world community wait for such action? Again, I think this conflict is going to make everyone impatient that we get along and get moving on such an initiative. I thank him for bringing this to my attention in the House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


An hon. member:: Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question and comments period is only five minutes at this point, so it has expired. We are going to the second 10-minute period. The hon. Minister for Employment and Immigration, on debate.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley North, spoke briefly of his friendship with and his commendation of the State of Israel. I want to elaborate a little bit, if I may, on those comments today.
Let us be clear, Madam Speaker, on a number of things that have happened recently in the Middle East in ways that have created a tragic situation for the world. Like other hon. members, I am anguished that the peace and stability in the world, which seemed within our grasp with the fall of the Berlin wall and with the recent fall of other symbols of repression and the atmosphere of hope so many of us had for the future of the world and for international peace, has come to such an abrupt end with what we have seen happening in Iraq and in Kuwait. There is not a single member of the House who would have chosen this to happen, particularly in contrast to that period of hope.
I do want to pay tribute to an ally of Canada's and of the western world who has been put in a particularly appalling position by the state of affairs that has occurred. The politics of the Middle East are steeped in traditions and enmities that very few of us in the House and in our country can comprehend. They go back for centuries. I would not attempt to have a full knowledge of them, and I do not think any of us would.
It does seem to me that there is a very large difference between what is happening in the gulf today and those historic tensions in the Middle East that have been building up for so long and over so many centuries.
Saddam Hussein is a phenomenon unto himself. He is a devil of his own creation. He arose over a period of the past 10 years to become a threat to all of us. He would have done so, in my view, whether or not there had been tension between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and whether or not there was that ancient tension between Arabs and Israelis.
Saddam Hussein waged a war against Iran. It is problematic, but I believe he would have done so, whether or not those ancient tensions with Israel existed. He invaded Kuwait, and I believe he would have done so, whether or not there were those historic tensions with Israel.
Having said this, I want to state publicly that I regard the patience and constraint that Israel showed in the circumstance as being exemplary and I pay tribute to it. Imagine if we had been debating in this Chamber under conditions where we were threatened with an attack and a conflict that essentially had nothing to do with us. Iraq invades Kuwait and the leader of Iraq says that if he is attacked, he will attack Israel. What would we do if we were in such a position? Our Prime Minister referred to it briefly the other day in his speech when he talked about the context in which these threats were made against Israel. Would we have been able to sit still and not pre-empt such an attack? We may or may not have.
I think the fact that the State of Israel, a country that is 42 years old-younger than many of us in this Chamber-and smaller than Vancouver Island, was able to do that is worthy of our commendation. This does not mean, in my view, that the tensions between Israel and its neighbours do not have to be resolved. But I do think we have to understand the context in which they must be resolved and that the parties in the region have been
January 17, 1991

historically and recently at a stalemate, that something is going to have break open that pattern. It is still my wish that the parties in the region could resolve that.
I would also remind hon. members that there was tension with the Palestinians before Israel entered the Gaza Strip following an attack upon Israel itself, that the refugee camps that were established in the Palestinian region were established essentially after the founding of the State of Israel but before Israel moved into those territories in response to an attack upon its territory.
The complications around these issues are large and it is incumbent upon us not to over simplify them by suggesting that a simple action or outside pressure on one party or the other, or on both, is going to resolve those. That is still for the future to decide.
We are all in this Chamber I think sensitive to the fact that what happens in that region affects all of us. I do think it is incumbent upon us to recognize that we have some allies who have supported us in other situations, that we must try to come to grips with what those threads are that have wrought such a black fabric in a region that is fraught with tension before we make judgments upon what those solutions may be.
I think there have been provocations on both sides in this dispute. I do not think anyone would argue that. I do not think any friend of Israel would argue that. But I do want to assure many of the friends of Israel in Canada, many of those in the Canadian Jewish community with family in that region, that many of us are daily conscious of the decisions we take and the impact that they will have on those families and on that nation.
Of course, there are other nations involved and of course there are other people at risk, not least of whom are our own who are there defending the values that we stand for and the United Nations and are doing so at risk to themselves. But I want to say to those people in the Jewish community in Canada that whatever is happening in the Middle East, there are many of us in this Chamber who are thinking of them, their friends and relatives and
Government Orders
their support for that region, and for that state, that many of us have also shown.
I watched the people in the region as they prepared to deal with a gas attack. One of my very early memories is of my father, who was going overseas during World War II when I was a very young girl. I tried on his gas mask just before he sailed away on a ship from Halifax harbour. I have been thinking every day since of what people in the region of the gulf and in Israel are facing. Those memories are very strong in my mind as I know they are in others who actually dealt with and were in battles in Europe during the war, which I certainly was not.
But I think that for all of us who desire peace and for all of us who value our friendship with states in the region that we wish a speedy end. That is what the government has stood for and that is what we continue to stand for.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, I have only a comment to make. I just want to take this opportunity to thank the minister for the very sensitive manner in which she has looked at the issue. I think that one broadens not only for the Israelis, for whom of course my heart is very much there, but for all ethnic minorities who live in that area. It is a very trying time. For all the families who have extended family in that region, I know that that is where our heart lies and that is where our concern is.
I can only hope that with Godspeed and our prayers we will have a very short-lived war and the problems that come from it will see the kind of resolution on a bilateral basis that will make good sense and bring the harmony that we are looking for in that area.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her support. Certainly, by my statement, I did not want to suggest that there were not others at risk, and I know she is not implying this. Clearly, there are many lives and groups at risk. I wanted to say that many of us believe that Israel is in a special situation because it had been singled out as a first target, and that in standing aside, the government and the people of Israel have done a service to world peace and to all of us. I say that not in an effort to be trite or to minimize the efforts that others have made.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech I just heard.
I agree that the people of Israel have been calm and patient to an admirable degree. In this respect, I share the sentiments of the hon. member for Mount Royal. However, when someone says that Mr. Hussein is his own creation, that Mr. Hussein is a phenomenon, that I cannot accept. Saddam Hussein is a creation of ours, of the United States. We must understand that when you start doing business with dictators because a dictator happens to be the enemy of your enemy, you are playing with fire.
What is particularly disappointing, and I say this as a former military man with a son in the U.S. Navy, is the failure of diplomacy, which obliges our soldiers to go over there to solve the problem we created here in the House and elsewhere.
In concluding, Madam Speaker, I hope we will learn a lesson and the lesson is this: When we support dictators because it suits us, we do so at the expense of the innocent, whether we are talking about Iraqis today or young people, soldiers in the armed forces that have to go over there to correct a problem that we created.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, once again, what I was trying to point out, and I stand by this, was that the situation in that region is a complicated one and I do not think one can say that a regime has been created by another. There were many factors that gave rise to the politics in this region. We, in this country have stood for, and our allies have always stood for, an attempt to find peace in that region.
Occasionally, we take people as we find them. It is not always in our interest to walk away from situations when we do not like what we find. There is no question in my mind that what has happened in Iraq, and the recent history of Iraq, has a lot to do with a single individual and his horrifying ambition, that he was not simply cut out of whole cloth. To suggest that there has been some evil Machiavellian attempt on the part of the United States or our friends and allies I think is to go well beyond the reality of the region, and to insert something into the
discussion which I think may be out of keeping with the atmosphere in which we find ourselves today.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I rise in this House today feeling veiy nervous about the state that we are in. I must say that before I came to the House, I referred back to a text from Prime Minister Trudeau when he gave a speech on October 27, 1983, at the University of Guelph. The title of the speech was "Reflections on Peace and Security".
He, of course, during the speech went through Canada's history and participation in NATO and its support of the UN. I want to quote the remarks he made early in his speech. "The difficulty all of us experience in trying to know what is going on in the world-to know it and to understand it in a manner that is accurate and that provides the ground for useful action. Too often our knowledge and our judgments are true and false at the same time. This is often the distinctive sign of rapidly changing realities which tend to elude our understanding".
We as Liberals on this side of the House have wanted to come back to this House and talk about this issue for many weeks now for precisely that reason. We have wanted to get accurate information and try to understand exactly, to the best of all members' ability, what is happening.
For the last two years the thought processes of members in this House have been working on a new world order where war was just totally out of our minds in terms of a real possibility. I think I can best describe it by referring to some comments I made last year at this very time when I was in Moscow. I was so proud to be speaking on behalf of the government at a Soviet-U.S. Citizens Summit on the environment.
I could not get over the feeling that I had that there we were, all working together, exchanging ideas, and our whole thrust was not measuring our strength as nations by the money we had or the armaments we were building up, but that we were measuring our strength by the mouths we could feed and the environment that we were all trying to protect.
For all of us in the House, our systems, our thought processes, have been working along these lines for the last couple of years. Now, all of a sudden, to be involved
January 17, 1991

in war is a tremendous shock because there have been so many peaceful changes in the world during the last couple of years, so many positive elements.
In my riding of Broadview-Greenwood, I must tell you that I have been receiving hundreds of names on petitions. Holy Name Church personally delivered petitions last night. Many people have been writing, people in my riding, members who have family in the Armed Forces who are in the Persian Gulf right now, but who were hoping that we could put our minds to work over the war machines.
We on this side of the House have been trying and hoping that there was some way, some idea or some different approach which would maybe trigger an action that would cause Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait.
As our motion said, we did not support what was going on at that time. However, now we are at war, and I still believe that we should be continually putting our minds to work at ideas to stop this war, because it is going to be a lot harder to stop it than it was to start it.
I hope, as many members have said today, that we can keep the tone in this House directed toward peace and creativity. We should not get caught up in the fact that when we listen to the CNN or to many other broadcasts it is the military might that seems to be getting the pre-eminent play. We should be hearing more from people with ideas on how we can somehow have a diplomatic way of stopping Saddam Hussein.
Our leader said last night that we support our troops over there. There is no question of that on this side of the House. Now that the action has begun, it would be absolutely foolish for us to try to send a signal which would in any way, shape or form give anything but a sense that as Canadians we are all together.
As I mentioned last night, three summers ago I had the experience of staying in Kuwait for almost three weeks. I have friends there. Some of them have immigrated to Canada. We are not without feeling for what is going on in their homeland. We know that he is an absolute madman, but we also know that many of the 450,000 Kuwaitis who are still there are probably now at greater risk than ever.
I say to you, Madam Speaker, and I say to all members of this House that none of us here support war. We must
Government Orders
put our collective thoughts together whereby we can somehow break through or influence others who are senior politicians around the world to cause this war to end very soon.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Madam Speaker, I want to applaud my good friend, the member for Broadview-Greenwood. He is trying to reflect not only the concern, worry and wishes of his own constituents but those of all of us on this side of the House including myself.
I have received hundreds of calls from my constituents in London East. It is a very sad day not only for Canada, because in fact we have embarked on this military action, but also for the Middle East and the world. We all understand that war at any time tends to erode that human fabric that holds all of humanity together.
War is not a solution, and that is what I think my hon. my friend was saying. War is not a solution to the problems not only in that region but to the problems of the world that we all have to work toward solving.
We on this side have been very frustrated that in fact a peaceful solution in diplomacy was not given a proper chance until the ultimate military weaponry had to be used.
We all agree that the dictator had to be removed, but are we all satisfied that the means justify the end? Will in fact a military victory bring peace to the area which the minister was talking about in a very complicated region of the world? Will the ultimate military victory bring peace in the world?
The other Arab countries in the area are also victims, I suggest, just like Israel. They did not want this dictator moving in on a sovereign state, because now what we have is perhaps further instability.
I want to ask my hon. friend what he believes are some of those things that can be done now that in fact armed conflict has commenced? Wars, as our leader said, are easy to start, perhaps too easy to start, but much more difficult to stop and for peace to be given as chance.
Can the member perhaps share his knowledge of the area and tell us some of the things that can be done as of today so that no more human blood has to be let on both sides? In the end, we all have to live with each other. We all have to build this world of co-operation which

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
seemed so promising about a year ago. I wonder if I could ask my hon. friend those questions.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I want to say to my colleague, first of all on the issue of sanctions, that it is a question of judgment. This is what I meant when I quoted Mr. Trudeau. One can be right and wrong on this issue. Quite frankly, I personally believe that maybe it was because we did not have enough knowledge that we not give sanctions a much longer period of time. In my judgment, and as many members have said, this is an issue of conscience. I did not get a sense that we had given it enough time.
We all know that this is one of the most complex areas of the world and that the relationships and the tensions go back for centuries. I do not have a magical solution. I humbly submit that this is why we must, as the member for Dartmouth said earlier, try to avoid partisanship. None of us has any sort of special ownership on this issue in terms of whether we are right or wrong. This is why we have to let down our guard and speak to each other in a way that somehow we will collectively come up with some kind of solution, and that is the best I have to offer.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I apologize because a moment ago I could not rise to speak after the remarks of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I should like to direct a question to my colleague. Members of the House and the minister know that in my party, in all parties, there are great friends of the State of Israel. This fact is well known, it was referred to earlier, and most of the minister's speech related to that. Indeed we all know that Canada is a friend of the State of Israel. I would have liked to direct my question to the minister, but since I cannot I will put it to you. I wonder whether time may have come for the friends of Israel to realize that as long as the Shamirs, the Begins and others refuse to admit that if they do not find a solution to the Palestinian issue and to the creation of a Palestinian state-that is what Canada voted for on November 1947-should the people who claim to be the friends of Israel not remind them that the greatest friends of Israel are not blind friends but friends who bring them back to reality?
You know, I have probably known all the Middle East heads of state. When people try to scare me with Saddam Hussein I could tell them all about Mr. Assad, the new Syrian leader who has now become the new ally of the Americans, if you can imagine that. Until very recently, Madam Speaker, Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush were telling Americans that Damascus was the nerve centre of Middle East terrorism. Now he is our ally.
I do not want to be mean, but the young college and university students who are listening to us need to be brought back to reality. One of the first terrorists was the current Prime Minister of Israel, a man we welcome here with open arms and who is called Mr. Shamir. He was one of the leading Polish terrorists with Mr. Begin, but now he is Prime Minister. The fact remains that he was once a terrorist.
I want to ask my colleague whether he believes that the Canadian government should admit that the time has come? My colleagues may agree with me that this war may be deplorable and unacceptable-war is war-but it may finally open our eyes to the Middle East reality and force us to come to grips with the problems generally. This will take time, but we have to start from the beginning, and the beginning is that the Palestinian state will eventually see the light of day. Would my colleague care to comment on that?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I would say to my colleague straight off that I absolutely believe that if there were ever a time when all of us should become more fully aware of all accurate facts in the history of this region, it is now. Obviously that would lead, in my opinion, to us sitting down at some kind of conference wherein all these issues would be resolved.
My answer to the member is yes, absolutely, correct. I think that would be serving Israel in the long term.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood.
Right now we are in the midst of war. It is very heartbreaking for many Canadians that we are in this situation. However they are-


An hon. member:: You look very hurt.
January 17, 1991


Jim Karygiannis: I would like to let my colleague from Scarborough Centre know that we have a lot of room on this side of the House for her.
However, returning to reality, there are many people in Canada from the Middle East who are seeking refuge: people from Syria, people from Iran, and even some people from Iraq.
I noticed previously that the Minister of Employment and Immigration was present in the House, but I would like to ask my colleague a very specific question. Does he believe, as I do, that the cases of people seeking refuge in Canada from that part of world should be expedited and looked at very carefully so that if there are any terrorists among them they will be weeded out? Does he believe that those particular cases should be brought to the forefront and dealt with as expeditiously as possible because those people could end up being stateless?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, first I would like to say to my colleague from Scarborough that I have written to the minister on this issue several months ago, not only in terms of the areas the member has mentioned but the entire backlog situation. I think we should all be deputized to assist the minister of immigration to expedite the process, especially right now for the countries the member mentioned.
The member reminds me of our mutually good friend, Bishop Sotirios, who has mentioned no doubt to him as he has to me and our colleague from Saint-Denis, that we are very nervous about Cyprus right now. We are nervous that there may be a chance that the government is thinking of withdrawing its troops. In this period of deliberation and debate, we had better make sure that we reflect on all the facts and make sure that does not happen.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 pm.

Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, now that it has come to war, I believe the top priority of this House must be the safety and well-being of Canadian troops and civilians in the Persian Gulf.
I know that the thoughts and prayers of all Canadians are with our citizens, Armed Forces and civilians alike, in the Middle East. We all hope for their safe and speedy return.
My thoughts are also with those Canadians who have family members and loved ones in the gulf. I would urge the government in the strongest possible terms to make provisions immediately for family members to be kept abreast of unfolding events in the Middle East. It is simply not enough that these individuals be forced to rely on the media for information as to the status of their loved ones.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to establish a toll-free, nation-wide hotline so that family members can receive up to the minute information on what is happening in the gulf, especially as it pertains to Canadian troops and civilians.
I also urge that regular communications with family members be initiated by the government and that these communications be as open and frank as possible.
Our troops and civilians currently in the Middle East deserve the best possible support we can provide for them and I strongly believe the same consideration should be extended to family members here in Canada.
I would strongly urge the government to get with it in this regard.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Premier Robert Bourassa of Quebec will be announcing today an important economic recovery plan of one billion dollars to counter the effects of the recession in Quebec. Mr. Bourassa said yesterday: "The economy obviously remains the first priority."
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that Mr. Bourassa is doing well. We need him in these difficult times in Quebec because, as far as I am concerned, he is a great Quebecer as well as a leader.

January 17, 1991


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians greet this day with deep sorrow and sadness. We have failed to resolve international problems by peaceful means. People, as I speak, are being killed by a war that we helped to initiate.
As a Korean veteran, I want to say that war and killing are never a solution. During past times of crises and tight security in Canada, civil rights of Canadians have been threatened. Canadians of Jewish, Ukrainian, German, Italian and Japanese origin, et aussi les Quebecois can attest to this.
It must not happen again. Just as we will support families of our Armed Forces, we also must support families of Arab and Middle East people living in Canada. We must widen our understanding of their culture and religions, prevent discrimination and prepare to open our doors to refugees.
Above all, we must work together to end this war now. Canada must find peaceful alternatives to help resolve Middle East problems.


GULF CRISIS
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, the grim reality of war brings many solemn thoughts to each of us. Three of them especially come to me today.
I know, for example, that I speak for every constituent in Fredericton-York-Sunbury in expressing deep and abiding concern for the men and women in Canada's Armed Forces now in the Middle East and for their families here at home.
This has intimate implications for a great many people in our riding, particularly those at CFB Gagetown.
As a member of Parliament, of course, I share the torment which each of us must feel as we accept the risks and responsibilities of decisions relating to war.
I stand firmly with the Government of Canada but obviously it is tempting to be on the side of the angels when one is not required to confront the devil. As a Canadian concerned for the unity of our own country, the war-torn tragedy of the Persian Gulf magnifies for me the absurdity of separating Canada in any form and intensifies the challenge for all of us to make sure that never happens. Let us commit to that challenge as we have also committed to restoring the peace in the Middle East.



Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, watching the events unfold last night, faces of Canadian servicemen and women kept flashing through my mind. I commend their courage. I mourn the loss of their youthful innocence and I pray for their safety.
The many calls I have received from my riding of Hamilton Mountain clearly show that although Canadians did not want this war, their hearts and prayers are with our military.
While we are trying to come to terms with all of this, we must focus our minds on looking for a cease fire and for ways to deal, with fairness and justice, with the horrendous consequences of war. Now is the time to assume Canada's traditional humanitarian and peacekeeping role.



Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, as ye sow, so shall ye reap. Mr. Hussein's war has entered a new phase and multinational forces have now entered the fray to expel Iraqi forces from occupied Kuwait. This multinational force is acting under the authority of the United Nations to implement resolution 678.
It is appropriate and proper that Canada and its forces should participate in support of the alliance for three
January 17, 1991

reasons: first, international peace and security are in Canada's national interest; second, the maintenance of the international rule of law is in Canada's national interest; and, third, the United Nations is the best and one vehicle for the attainment of international peace and security and the rule of law.
As the former Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition said so eloquently in this House yesterday, Canada has never failed to stand by and support the United Nations. It would be an abandonment of our history for Canada not to stand by the UN in this great moment of need.
I commend the current Prime Minister and Government of Canada for having the integrity and courage to do what is right for Canada, the United Nations and the world. May the conflict end quickly with minimum casualties and may all Canadians stand by and pray for our forces and their families.



Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, during the last few days members of this House have had the opportunity to make speeches and debate the issue of Canada's role in the gulf. I would like to add to the debate the voice of children from LEcole Intermediaire Sacre-Coeur in Timmins and St. John's School in Sault Ste. Marie. Our youth, whose future is at stake, must have a say in this matter.

Katrine Sauve from Timmins tells us: "War is destructive for everyone. What is going to happen to us, the young?" "The thought of war is scary and troubling as I think of my future and that of others. Please, make peace, not war", says Christine Savage.
Vicky Saint-Denis is 13 years old. She says: "No war. The alternative is peace, love and justice. War frightens us. It gets us killed, decimates our families and our homes. Please, let there be no war. Let us have peace instead."

Candice Day from Sault Ste. Marie wants us to know that she is 13 years old and that she would like to live until she reaches the age of 14. She tells us that, "If there are cures for diseases, why are there not cures for war?"
Time is lacking for me-


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the hon. member's time has expired.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, the past few hours were a time of fear and incertainty all over the world. Canadians are stunned and afraid to see Canada engage in war. I find it hard to understand the need to come to such dramatic decisions as declaring war in order to restore global order and bring about peace.
I never thought I would have to take part in making such a decision in my political career. However, deep down inside me, it is clear that Canada must be alongside its allies. Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to endanger the fragile world balance. No state or head of state has the right to take a neighbouring country by force. Saddam Hussein must understand that he has to get out of Kuwait.

English]


GULF CRISIS
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for Canada. Canadians know that my party wanted our troops withdrawn if war with Iraq were to begin. We lost that debate.
Now that the government has decided to involve our troops in military action, we will do everything in our power to support our men and women who are now in this war, thus ensuring their security and safety. However, my party stands united in considering this an unnecessary war at this time.
What do we do now? Stop the war as soon as possible. Seek a peaceful solution to this conflict. Anticipate the problems that the war will create, such as care for the injured, the emotional trauma which will be suffered by combatants and non-combatants, the economic and social insecurities which will be brought to that area of our planet, the environmental impact of the war, and averting other wars and conflicts.

January 17, 1991

War should always be a last resort. War marks a breakdown in humanity. Let us think of the future, of Canada and of our young people.



Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few days every member of Parliament has had to decide whether or not to vote for Canada to support the United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq.
I truly understand those that have called for peace not war. The problem is it never was a question of peace or war. There already was war, a war of the worst kind in Kuwait. The question really was would Canada become involved or not.
Canada did become involved and I support that decision.
The awful truth is there will probably always be a Saddam Hussein, maybe a little better, maybe a little worse, but there will always be someone like him. The difference now is that the Saddam Husseins of the world will face and know they face the prospect of unified forces of the countries of the world under the United Nations.
The contributions being made by the multinational forces right now will go a long way to ensure peace in the future and they all have our support and prayers.



Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, for young Canadians this is the first time they experience their country being at war. It can be a time of confusion and disillusion. It can also be time for new hope.
We in the Liberal Party join our voices with all Canadians calling for peace by way of an early cease-fire leading to negotiations to settle the current gulf crisis. It will take strong and skilful leadership qualities to achieve an early and lasting peace. We all urge the Government of Canada to persist in the pursuit of the road to peace.
It will be a difficult path to follow but one which Canadians, young and old, will support unanimously.
Give peace a chance. That is the Canadian tradition.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, many attempts have been made to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in the Persian Gulf. All diplomatic initiatives deployed since the beginning of the invasion of Kuwait and intensified during the past 48 days have failed because of the intransigent attitude of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Hussein has flouted international law and order. Unfortunately, the war is now a reality, a sad reality that gives no one cause for rejoicing. We all hope that this conflict will be brief and will be followed by a long and lasting peace.
On behalf of all my constituents, I want to say that we fully support and wish the best of luck to all Canadian military men and women who defend, with pride and dignity, the rights, freedoms and principles we hold dear. We think especially of their families and friends, and we hope they will soon return home safely.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, just one month after the government gutted the CBC, the cash-strapped network is off to join the pools of international reporters currently providing coverage of the gulf war.
While millions of Canadians are glued to their TV sets, we are severely disadvantaged by witnessing censored American coverage through American eyes.
With U.S. networks estimating coverage of the crisis at $1 million per week, where is our national broadcasting service expected to find the necessary funds. CBC employees and local stations can only fear it will be at their expense.
Canadians, as a caring and peaceful people, are concerned and want to learn what is happening in the gulf. Coverage of our forces' involvement in the gulf
January 17, 1991

crisis can only be objectively provided by our own reporters.
Cabinet has made the decision that Canadians will now play an offensive role in the gulf. Will this same Cabinet provide the funds required for the CBC to provide adequate coverage so that Canada can come to understand the tragedy of war through Canadian eyes?


LITHUANIA
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, considering the sad events now taking place in Lithuania, we must condemn outright the use of force to smother the legitimate aspirations of a people. This kind of armed intervention is particularly odious, coming as it does after the Lithuanian people had democratically expressed their legitimate aspirations.
At a time when Quebec, for the second time in 10 years, is also preparing to exercise democratically its inalienable right to self-determination, we feel a special solidarity with the Lithuanian people, having experienced the intervention of the Canadian army in 1970, as a result of the War Measures Act.
I hope that Lithuania will be able to continue on its peaceful and democratic way towards freedom. I also hope that the will of its people is respected by the entire international community.
Furthermore, I hope that in the not too distant future, our two countries, Quebec and Lithuania, will be able to work together as sovereign nations.


PERSIAN GULF CRISIS
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, last night Canadians sat in their living rooms and listened with shock as reports confirmed our worst fears, that war had begun in the Middle East.
Now that the United Nations effort has begun we, as Canadians, have to come together in support of our soldiers, men and women, who have placed themselves at risk to restore world order.
Oral Questions
The world through the United Nations has taken a stand against the naked aggression of Saddam Hussein. We must stand together to ensure the principles as set forth in the UN charter are upheld.
Former Prime Minister John Turner perhaps put it best when he said that we are all citizens of the world. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we all have a responsibility to share in the collective security of our world and the action which began last evening was the first step to realizing that objective.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today, for the first time in 40 years, Canada is at war. During the past few months, the Liberal Party has urged the government not to choose the war option. Today, now that the war has started, we will do everything that is necessary to support our Canadian military men and women who are fighting today in the gulf. We want to see them safely back in Canada as soon as possible. I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister: Could he inform the House whether Canadian forces were directly involved in the military operations against Iraq? If so, could he tell us how many casualties there were, if any?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, unless there has been some last minute information, no, there was no involvement of Canadian troops and as far as I know, there were no casualties at all. My hon. friend referred to there being a war option. Canada did not choose that option. It was Saddam Hussein who started a war against his neighbour on August 2. Canada, after entirely admirable attempts with other countries, sought peace and all our efforts supported a lasting peace. However, every attempt was rebuffed by Saddam Hussein. At the very last minute and once the die was cast, Canada joined the other countries defending the interests of the United Nations and in so doing defended the interests of peace in the world.

January 17, 1991
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to learn that there have been no Canadian casualties so far. As I said, while we had hoped that Canada would not be in this war at this time, we will, as Canadians, do everything we can to support the Canadian men and women who are fighting in the gulf.
In light of that, will the Prime Minister report to members of Parliament and Canadians on a daily basis on how the Canadian forces are doing in the Persian Gulf?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will of course be happy to report, not only today, but many times as the relevant information becomes available to me.
We also have offered, and I will be happy to repeat the offer, regular confidential briefings for the leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party in regard to developments in the gulf, the details of which it might not be in the public interest to divulge at a given time. We will share with the opposition.
I understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be responding to invitations from parliamentary committees. We would look forward to the co-operation of all members of Parliament. To that end we will share with my friends, the leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party, any and all information that we can. I will make any reports that I can make to the Elouse and the country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his answer.
As the Prime Minister knows, the United Nations Security Council was in emergency session overnight last night.
Can the Prime Minister advise the House exactly what Canada is doing in the United Nations to bring about an early cease-fire? What is Canada doing today to seek an end to this tragic conflict as soon as possible?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, earlier today, following a cabinet meeting, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be in direct touch with Perez de Cuellar, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, both in regard to the peace plan, elements of which were submitted by Canada in writing as a possible initiative last week and also to consider any possible alternatives even at this late hour which might bring an end to hostilities.
The fact of the matter is that all that is required to end the hostilities is a clear signal from Saddam Hussein that he, even at this late moment, is in the process of withdrawing from the illegally-occupied country. To this end, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has communicated earlier today with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and I know he would be happy to respond to any question in the House in regard to details.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could follow up on the statements made by the Prime Minister in regard to that.
In addition to the contacts made with the Secretary-General, we know this morning that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the United States, General Powell, indicated that there would be no cessation of the bombing until they had completed their program in order to undertake any kind of diplomatic initiative.
Has the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs been in consultation with our allies in this coalition, not just on military matters but to see whether there could be diplomatic initiatives that would secure the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait so as to end the loss of life before it becomes too extravagant and to exaggerated and there are far too many people killed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that the comment to which my hon. friend refers at the head-of-government level came from Prime Minister Major. He indicated a strong disinclination by Her Majesty's government to cease hostilities at this time in the absence of a clear signal from Saddam Hussein. The British, like all of us, fear
January 17, 1991

that he would use that time to regroup and to mount an assault against allied troops. That we will not have.
But if there were a clear signal from him saying that finally, after all this time, he was going to respect the will of the United Nations, then Canada would immediately pursue the call that my colleague made to the Secretary-General of the United Nations earlier today, and energize plans that hopefully would arrest the growth of hostilities and bring them to an end.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the Prime Minister or the secretary of state to qualify that even further.
The Prime Minister says that they are awaiting a signal from Saddam Hussein. In order to have a signal, one has to have an open line of communication. We are wondering if the members of the coalition, including our own country, have maintained diplomatic contact with the Iraqis in order to maintain that line of communication to determine if there is any willingness-


Mr. Crosbie:: The CNN.


Lloyd Axworthy: No, not the CNN. I am not sure that that is the appropriate means for these initiatives to take place.
The fact of the matter is: Are we maintaining those open lines of communication? Have we determined from our allies, particularly the United States which is leading this coalition, whether they are prepared to undertake diplomatic initiatives to secure the withdrawal, which is the stated end, without continuing the conflict and the military action so that we can have an end to this very severe and tragic loss of life?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been clear for some time that the purpose of the coalition has been to have Saddam Hussein respect the Security Council resolutions and get out of Kuwait.
I think the hon. member and the House would agree that, whatever our expertise, it would be very risky for Parliament to try to make, on the floor of the House of Commons, the kinds of military decisions that the hon. member is talking about.
Oral Questions
He is, as I understand it, asking us whether we have suggested, now that a military operation has begun, that we should interpose a pause before there has been a response from Saddam Hussein. If he is not recommending that, I am relieved, because I think the House would understand that that would be a very counter productive policy in the circumstances.
He asks if lines are open. Yes, lines are open. The situation is, as it has been for some time, that the responsibility to respond rests now with Saddam Hussein. I think that the member would agree, and I think most Canadians would agree, that it would be unwise for the rest of the world to act on an assumption that Saddam Hussein would respond any particular way without having heard from him. He is the aggressor. He is the person who can end the aggression. After yesterday, he has extraordinary reason to end that aggression. We hope he will send that signal.
Lines are open both to Canada through the Holy See and to other members of the coalition. We hope he will avail himself of that opportunity. Then, as the Prime Minister has said, certainly Canada would be prepared to move very quickly.
As was clear in my conversations today with Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar, the United Nations is putting itself in a position to be able to respond very quickly.
The House would have wanted me to, as I did, ensure the Secretary-General that Canada would be prepared to co-operate in any way and as expeditiously as possible with further initiatives by the United Nations.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, it has been announced that Canada will be one of a minority of countries among the multinational coalition to place its troops on active combat duty. My party opposed its action yesterday afternoon. We did so last night, and we continue to oppose this action today.
I would suggest to the Prime Minister that, rather than being a symbolic presence for war, why should Canada's role not be to be an effective force for peace?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Would the Prime Minister not consider removing Canadian troops from combat duty in the gulf and re-deploying our forces to provide the military

January 17, 1991
Oral Questions
assistance that will be required to deliver humanitarian, medical and food aid to the region?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I have difficulty in understanding the argument of my hon. friend.
She indicates that Canada is a symbolic presence for war. Canada is not a symbolic presence for war. Canada has a real presence designed to enforce the reality of the United Nations. We believe the United Nations is the only international body that can procure a durable peace. That has been a consistent policy' of the House for over 40 years and we plan to respect it. With regard to the symbolism of the G-7 nations, Canada has the fourth largest deployment of forces in the region of the entire G-7. That is because we believe that strongly in the United Nations.
We believe, reluctantly but of necessity, along with the rest of the industrialized world and apparently most other people in the world who believe in freedom and liberty, that the cause of liberty and the cause of freedom is best served, given the absolute intransigence of Saddam Hussein, by the actions taken to enforce the will of the United Nations yesterday.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I agree finally with the Prime Minister on one item, and that is, that the United Nations should be the force for enforcing and finding an enduring peace-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: -and I believe it can be as long as it does not operate solely on the old world order and does truly become a new world order.
I would like to pursue further the point that I made earlier to the Prime Minister. I have been in contact with a number of international aid organizations today and they all say that there is an urgent need for a number of humanitarian activities which now require military assistance. They require air and sea escort to protect ships bringing medical and other humanitarian aid to the region, to protect refugees in the region and to ensure that food reaches the some four million starving people in the Horn of Africa.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Will he make our military resources available to accomplish these very important objectives which are also life and death objectives?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what the hospital arrangements of this government deployed yesterday are in the process of doing.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That's not possible.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The NDP says no. But we are there to assist allies. We are there to assist all in the area. We are there to respond to the requirements of the Geneva Convention. Surely, that is at least something that the NDP should applaud; that Canada provides hospital facilities to look after the injured or wounded. Surely this is in keeping with our humanitarian traditions.
My hon. friend says-and I think I am quoting her accurately-"The United Nations should be the instrument to enforce the requirements of peace". Indeed. But how do you do it? How do you do it when confronted by a brutal aggressor who refuses to withdraw? You either make speeches or you stand up after a period of time and say enough is enough and the civilized world has said to Saddam Hussein, enough is enough, and you must leave Kuwait.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, when it is a question of whether we take the risk of war or we take the risk of more talking, I would suggest that we should take the risk of more talking.


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


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Although the Prime Minister did say last night that obviously all diplomatic avenues must be explored, it is not too late-quite the contrary-to stop this war, and Canada can and must play a role. Will the Prime Minister use his good offices to work towards peace and instruct our United Nations diplomats to begin the formalities required to convene an international conference on the Middle East?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, again in the preamble of the question of my hon. friend, she makes an interesting statement.
January 17, 1991

The leader of the NDP says we must take the risk of war or the risk of more talking. But the war began on August 2 when Iraq invaded an innocent neighbour state. It was a declaration of war on an innocent fellow Arab nation. That was what began the war, not anything that the United States, the United Kingdom, France or Senegal or Canada has done. We are in there to protect the peace. Saddam Hussein is responsible for the war.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second part of my friend's question, as I just said, the Secretary of State for External Affairs did get in touch with the Secretary-General of the United Nations this morning. He told him that Canada is quite prepared to initiate fresh diplomatic propositions or to devise political action on the four basic elements already transmitted to the Secretary-General last week. As soon as the world gets a clear signal that Saddam Hussein will abide by the provisions of the UN resolution and withdraw from Kuwait, the United Nations would be prepared to respond with the active support of Canada.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Canadians will want to know exactly what role Canadian forces are playing in the gulf now, specifically what missions they will be carrying out-both the planes and the ships.
Can the minister tell us what that role is, will be, and exactly what danger it is likely to put our forces in now and in the future.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, since hostilities commenced, as the January 15 deadline established by the United Nations had passed, the role of Canada's fighter squadron has been that of combat air patrol, the same role that was provided before January 15, before the change in circumstances. That was the responsibility of the Canadian forces last evening. For the near term, I anticipate that to be the role which they will take.
The authorization of sweep and escort for the Canadian fighter squadron does not mean that they will
Oral Questions
participate in that role, but it means that they are available to the tactical commanders to participate if they can assist in removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
As to our naval task force, it is assembled to provide defensive support and resupply among a group of other nations. The two destroyers are providing, along with vessels of other nations, air defensive support to the combat logistic group. They, as the hon. member and others are aware, would not operate in the very northern tip of the gulf. They would operate in providing resupply at sea in a less hostile area. They, along with the Canadian destroyers and air defence vessels of other nations, are providing the defensive task force or the grouping for those Canadian ships and ships of other nations.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. Will any further Canadian forces be going to the gulf, specifically CF-18s? Have any been requested from other countries? Have any been recommended by the Chief of Defence Staff? Has the government offered any further Canadian forces, specifically CF-18s, to other countries?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, I know, is aware that the addition of the six CF-18s, plus the Boeing 707 air refueller into the Persian Gulf area, is part of our air squadron which allows the squadron to now maintain a combat air patrol on a 24-hour, seven-day a week basis. The provision of the Boeing 707 refueller allows for opportunity of refuelling for other nations.
There has not been a request, Mr. Speaker, nor was there a request when we provided the additional aircraft. It was provided on the advice of the Chief of Defence Staff. The answer to the third question is no, there has not been a recommendation to provide more CF-18s. We believe that the 24 that are there with the support staff and supply personnel and form a workable squadron are making a contribution and doing good work.
I can say to the hon. member that if at some time some of those assets or personnel are lost, we are prepared to replace them, and replace them on an ongoing basis.

January 17, 1991
Oral Questions


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Given the reaction of the Secretary General of the United Nations after hostilities commenced last night, and given the announcement by White House spokesman Marvin Fitzwater that the coalition forces have joined the United States in the liberation of Kuwait, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether the government considers what is going on now in the Persian Gulf a United Nations controlled operation, or does it not?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, part of the answer to the hon. member's question is that the authority for the activity that is taking place now, that of hostility and the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, falls under the auspices of the United Nations and the authority of the United Nations to the collaborating nations.
As the hon. member would know, Canada has tactical command of assets, materiel and personnel of other nations. That being said, the over-all command of the assets of all the collaborating nations involved in the hostilities in enforcing the UN resolution 678 to remove Saddam Hussein fall under the over-all command of General Norm Schwarzkopf. That being said, we must recognize that when Canada accepts tactical control and command of assets and personnel of other nations, naturally Canada has assigned the tactical control of its assets to the over-all command.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I do thank the minister for his answer to my question. I believe I understand the interpretation.
I would like to ask the minister perhaps in another way, does the Government of Canada intend to ask the Secretary General of the United Nations to invoke the necessary measures in the United Nations charter to make this a UN-controlled operation?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as the answer to the hon. member's first question dealt with the authority, he knows the only appropriate instrument to my knowledge within the United Nations charter at this time for this event happens to be the military committee. I think he realizes and understands the military committee of the United Nations has been inactive for several years. Because of
the cold war, that may change in the future, but it has not changed at this date.
I am sure the hon. member would agree with me that having national command, Canadian command of Canadian men and women and assets in the Persian Gulf, is much better than abdicating the command to a committee.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Many Canadians, while praying for the safety of our forces in the gulf, deeply believe that this war and Canada's participation in this war is a tragic mistake.
I want to ask the Prime Minister the following question: George Bush said last night that this war would not be another Vietnam. In view of this statement, will the Prime Minister urge Canada's allies, and in particular the United States, not to use nuclear weapons in any circumstances in this war? And will he further urge the United States and our allies to withdraw all nuclear weapons from the area to avoid the possibility of a devastating accident?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the particular hon. member becomes more irresponsible and more outrageous every day. He knows that there has never been any question of the use by the coalition of nuclear weapons in this conflict. He knows that, but he hopes that he might be able to create some fear among Canadians and so he poses that irresponsible question in this House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. He will surely recognize that if what he says is accurate there should be no nuclear weapons in the theatre of war.
Earlier in Question Period the Prime Minister stated that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be appearing before the external affairs committee today or tomorrow. We welcome that assurance that he will be before the committee at this very critical time.
I want to ask the minister to confirm the earlier statement of the Prime Minister that he will be appearing before the external affairs committee today or tomorrow and to ask the minister specifically: Will he call for an immediate end to hostilities, for a pause for peace in this tragic war, if indeed the Iraqi offensive
January 17, 1991

capability has been eliminated and wiped out, as the United States says?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that discussion of committee business is in order on the floor of the House in Question Period.
The committee knows that, because I have some responsibilities that arose from developments overnight,
I am not able to take part in a committee hearing today. It also knows that I have regularly made myself available and intend to continue to do that.
With regard to the positions that have been put forward by the hon. member, I hope he will, in his questions in committee and in his conduct in this House, remember that his responsibilities as a member of Parliament go beyond using this place as a forum. They extend to accepting some element of responsibility for protecting the reputation and advancing the interests of this country.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
I have considerable concern about his response to my colleague's question about the role of the UN. This government has insisted that our collaboration at this time in the war in the gulf is under UN operation. At this time the UN system is on the knife edge of success or failure.
I would like the minister to clarify for us right now what his statement was. It sounded as if he were saying that Canadian forces under Canadian command, with U.S. tactical over-all command, was better than UN command. Is that so?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. I said in this case that there was nothing I was aware of that was available under the UN to command Canadian forces, except the military committee of the United Nations.
As the hon. member and her colleagues know, the military committee of the United Nations has not functioned over the past number of years. I would also suggest to the hon. member that the safety and opportunity for success of that command of Canadian men and women serving Canadian will to reinforce the resolu-
Oral Questions
tions of the United Nations is much better under Canadian national command than under the command of a committee.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
It is quite disturbing to try to understand what this government's commitment is to the United Nations. I believe that war must be always seen as failure. Conflict resolved by war is not a recipe for peace. Canada has traditionally played a role as peacekeeper, yet at the present time we find ourselves as combatants in the present crisis.
Can the Prime Minister tell us if there is active planning at this time for Canada to play a future peacekeeping role at the United Nations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs discussed that point specifically with the Secretary-General of the United Nations earlier today. The Secretary-General of the UN was, as has already been reported to the House, particularly gratified by not only Canada's support but Canada's interest in putting forward some innovative ideas to try to be helpful.
My hon. friend raises a very perplexing question. She says that it is troubling to understand our commitment to the United Nations. What could be clearer than the commitment of this government and this House to the United Nations, when the United Nations at the moment of its greatest challenge invited as a result of a Security Council resolution all members to come to the aid of the United Nations? They sent out an appeal for aid to the United Nations to sustain the United Nations at the moment of its greatest challenge. Canada heard the appeal and Canada responded in the manner that I indicated last night.
Perhaps I may just very briefly respond to the important question raised by my friend and by some of her colleagues in regard to the United Nations in earlier circumstances and the command structures. Since there seems to be some people who take offence at the involvement of an ally, the United States, in these matters, I refer my hon. friend to a statement made by Prime Minister St. Laurent in this House in regard to Korea and the command structure there. He said on September 1, 1950: "They (the Americans) were the only

January 17, 1991
Oral Questions
ground troops available to render immediate assistance to the arms of the South Koreans themselves", and I think it is important to underline this. Mr. St. Laurent said: "they have done it in such a magnificent and heroic manner that it makes it, I think, all the more encouraging for other members of the United Nations to follow under their leadership". That is what Mr. St. Laurent said.


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: The UN flag.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The UN flag. Mr. Pearson said in regard to the United Nations command: "We know of course that the most important member of the United Nations in this particular matter is the United States. It is the country best able to intervene in this matter as an agent of the United Nations and it has already acted effectively".
That was Mr. Pearson's position. That was Mr. St. Laurent's position, and that is the position of the Government of Canada.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Since the long-range goal for the gulf region must be peace and stability, it is essential, even in war, to prepare an environment which can produce that peace and stability after the conflict.
Consequently, I want to ask the minister: What is the government doing to minimize attacks on civilians and the destruction of civilian targets? Has the minister conveyed this view to the United States and to other allies in the coalition?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if I may make two quick comments in response, one is that again I think that while it is perfectly appropriate for us to debate the consequences of some of these matters in a House like this, none of us would pretend to be military commanders. Decisions have to be taken as to the most effective way in which an end can be brought most quickly to an aggression.
Second, I would remind the member and the House that the victims of this aggression in Kuwait were very clearly civilians. They still are. I laid upon the table of the House yesterday a report of Amnesty International,
now old, which is to say that it has not caught up to date with some of the continuing atrocities involved with the occupation by Iraq of Kuwait.
I certainly agree with the member. We must do everything we can to bring this to an end as quickly as possible. That means a very effective military action. That has begun. It also means that the world must be ready very quickly to move to re-establishing a peace when that opportunity arises. It was precisely that that I discussed with the Secretary-General of the United Nations when I called him earlier today.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I did not find the minister's answer very assuring. Two wrongs don't make a right. I hope that everything possible will be done to minimize the killing of civilians and the attacks on civilian centres.

Mr. Speaker, considering our hopes for a speedy end to this unfortunate war, is the government, together with the United Nations, prepared to initiate a plan for peace for this area, a plan that will guarantee development and justice for these peoples once the war is over?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is not quite clear whether the hon. member is referring to the gulf area. That is the area we are talking about? Fine.
Yes, we are prepared to consider ways to ensure peace and provide a basis for prosperity, if these countries are willing to support a more democratic system of government in the area. I think everyone will understand that after the war, this area will undergo profound changes, whatever the nature of the resolution may be. In future it will no longer be possible to maintain the kind of regime that existed in certain countries in the gulf. Canada is prepared to play an active role in bringing about those changes.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in the House, the hon. member for Abitibi spoke eloquently about a demonstration in Val d'Or for peace in the Persian Gulf. This demonstration attracted over 500 participants, including Quebecers represented by this Conservative member, people who are against war and against this one.
January 17, 1991

Will the Prime Minister listen to his own members from Quebec? Will he announce in this House today that the Canadian Armed Forces will take no part in offensive actions in the gulf?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that last night the government announced an international policy consistent with the actions initiated last August and September by this government. I believe that last night the Leader of the Opposition indicated that his party intended to support the government in this respect, considering the turn of events.
The hon. member mentioned the position taken by a member for Quebec. There is a wide range of views in Quebec. We find them in my own riding and in the hon. member's riding, and they are all valid. Someone mentioned 58 per cent of Quebecers are against war. I think that ought to be 100 per cent. Personally, I am against war, and I think we all are.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: However, there comes a time when we must stand and defend the interests of the United Nations. In doing so, we are defending the interests of lasting peace in the world. Since you mentioned one Quebecer who is against the war, I will mention another one who supported the government yesterday, Premier Bourassa.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Chambly, for a very short supplementary.


Philip Edmonston: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. One sure thing is that the Prime Minister knows there is a number of alternatives. His member for Abitibi knows there is a number of alternatives. As a former service man I know we have several alternatives other than war, and war with the active participation of Canada in offensive manoeuvres. Here is my question to the Prime Minister: Why would the Prime Minister always insist on an offensive role for Canada when our traditions call instead for a humanitarian role in such conflicts.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on August 2 last there was an act of aggression against Kuwait on the part of Iraq. This was a declaration of war by one Arab state against another. Canada joined
Point of Order
the other members of the United Nations in deploring this initiative and attempting by every peaceful means to find an acceptable settlement of the conflict. Despite all attempts, despite all efforts made by Canada and a number of other countries, they were all unhesitantly rejected by the President of Iraq. Following a United Nations decision setting the deadline for last January 15, the countries that defend the interests of the United Nations decided to act in the interest of peace, of freedom and of human dignity which is being vilified by troops under the command of Saddam Hussein. Canada is there, not to play an aggressive role but to uphold the basic interests of the United Nations because the government believes that without the United Nations there will be no lasting peace in the world. That is why we are defending the interests of the United Nations.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I notice that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is seeking the floor, but I must advise the House that it is after three o'clock.
[Translation)


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister would not want to mislead the House, and truth ought not to be the first victim of the war but-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Leader of the Opposition rising on a point of order?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.


POINT OF ORDER
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to point out to the Prime Minister that on June 30, 1950, Prime Minister St. Laurent said in this House, and I quote: "It would be our part in collective police action under the control and authority of the United Nations for the purpose of restoring peace to the area where an aggression has occurred"-I repeat: "- our part. . .under the control and authority of the United Nations."-That is not the case at the present time.

January 17, 1991
Business of the House


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister St. Laurent may have said that in June. I have no problem with that. But, on September 1, 1950, he said this-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He made the following statement to this House on September 1, 1950:

They (the Americans) were the only ground troops available to render immediate assistance to the arms of the South Koreans themselves, and they have done it in such a magnificent and heroic manner that it makes it, I think, all the more encouraging for other members of the United Nations to follow under their leadership.
That is what he said on September 1, 1950.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are debating a very important point here.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Prime Minister is tiying to imply that when the Canadian troops participated in the war in-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to say to hon. members that I have no authority to allow this to move into a debate.
Before asking hon. members to deal with the usual Thursday question, I understand the hon. member for Nepean is seeking the floor.



Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have unanimous consent to propose a motion to be put forward without debate or amendment.
The motion is moved by myself and seconded by the members for Vancouver East and Pierrefonds-Dollard. It reads as follows:
That this House continue to have confidence in the loyalty of Arab Canadians and in their support of Canada at this time of global crisis; and
That this House condemns unequivocally any attempt to portray these communities as less than full members of Canadian society.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have from the government at this time any indication as to what it intends to call this afternoon, tomorrow, Monday and possibly Tuesday of next week?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the motion under debate.
In terms of the rest of this week, next week, and beyond, as usual I would not think of making proposals to the House until I have had conversations with my counterparts opposite that we usually have. I hope we can have those conversations very shortly.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary to the point of order of the House leader, I tried to get your eye in the latter part of Question Period, but I understand the problems thereto.
Uncontaminated by House leaders' meetings, I would like to have asked during Question Period what the government House leader's thoughts are in bringing to a conclusion this most redundant debate that we are presently involved in.
In view of the hostilities last night, should we not have a vote to see who is on the side of the United Nations and who is not, so that we can then get on with other government business?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Harvie Andre: As usual, the hon. member has the substance of the real question concerning further business. We have been debating this motion for some time now. It is a replication of two resolutions already passed last October and November. It is appropriate that it be brought to completion as soon as possible.
January 17, 1991

We usually do this during House leaders' discussions, but I will certainly involve the independent members in the discussions to find some way of bringing about a resolution. Appropriately, that should be sooner rather than later.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, this morning the government House leader made a commitment to the effect that we would be advised about the briefings. Perhaps I should raise this as a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, because I was not so advised. I am told there were briefings for many members, Mr. Speaker, but as I speak I can tell you that I was not given access to the same information. I deeply regret that.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the matter was raised before. If the hon. member wants to raise it as a question of privilege, I, of course, have not had notice. The hon. government House leader may wish to respond.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will respond very quickly. I have had assurances from the Minister of National Defence that he, and/or his officials would be in contact with the hon. member as soon as possible. If that has not happened, it is because, understandably, other things are going on. I can assure the hon. member and other independent members that the briefings will be offered very soon.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, my office was notified about 12.35 p.m. that, as an independent member, I was to report to Room 253-D for a briefing from defence officials at 12.45. So I put on my coat, went over to that room and walked in on the NDP caucus. Obviously, there was a problem.
We may treat this lightly, but I believe that we, as independent members, have every right to be notified by the Minister of National Defence's office. I made requests of somebody in that meeting, and I was told that if I wanted to book a room, all the independents would be able to get a briefing.
Mr. Speaker, you can appreciate that it is not my responsibility to get hold of all the other independent members. If somebody was not available, then I could be accused and criticized of keeping them out of it. I believe
Government Orders
that the Minister of National Defence's office should have phoned me back immediately. In fact, all the other independent members with whom I checked, many of their offices had not been contacted. This is not adequate.
On behalf of the independents, I would like to say that we would appreciate hearing as soon as possible from the Minister of Defence's office so that we can be informed as quickly and clearly as possible. It is simply not acceptable to be cut off.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's intervention. I must say to the House that this is getting beyond something that be can necessarily be settled across the floor of the House. The hon. Minister of Defence is seeking the floor. I will, of course, recognize him.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
I do apologize to the hon. member for Beaver River. As soon as we had the opportunity to provide briefers, we informed her. Unfortunately, the briefing before hers was for the New Democratic Party. They kept the room to caucus in. We apologize. We will arrange a briefing as quickly as possible.
We also attempted to contact all other independent members. When we phoned several of the independent members from the province of Quebec we reached an answering machine. If they would check their answering machines, I am sure they will find that notification.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I fully support the comments of the hon. member for Beaver River. We are in difficult times, unusual times, so I am not casting stones. There is not an answering service in my office but we got the call at 1.28 p.m. or whatever.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead), (p. 16984) and the motion of Mrs. Collins (p. 17150).
[Stage Direction]
January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be taking part in this debate at this very important time.
I would like to point out that since my election in 1980 as the member of Parliament for Athabasca I have often found myself visiting the Memorial Chamber in the Peace Tower. I have very seldom looked at the Korean Book of Remembrance and I was unable to recognize the name of someone now buried in the UN cemetery in Pusan in Korea. These were Canadians who took part in an earlier UN action, the Korean war.
Some of us, as young men, joined the special force for Korea because we wanted adventure and because we were too young to participate in the Second World War. We really thought that we had missed something. But my experience was that, very soon after arriving in South Korea, this feeling of adventurism disappeared when we saw the poverty and the homeless Korean people, men, women, and children, refugees in their own country. Many were homeless and living by the roadside, but they expressed in many ways their sincere appreciation for our being there. Sometimes they offered to share their meagre possessions, perhaps an egg or an apple. That touched us deeply.
But the most important thing going for the troops in Korea at the time was the support we received from Canadians, letters, parcels, visits to the theatre by members of Parliament, visits by the defence minister of the day, and newspapers from home expressing praise in our efforts. There was unanimous support.
The feeling of adventurism changed to one of real pride and the realization that we were there to preserve world security and world peace as a member of the United Nations. We all seemed to walk a little taller and with a great deal of pride.
We fought alongside other forces from other countries with that multinational United Nations group. We fought alongside British regiments, Australian regiments, New Zealand artillery, the Turk regiments, American marines, American cavalry, Scottish regiments, Irish regiments, Welsh regiments, and the Korean regiments themselves.
I am absolutely convinced that if we had not had the 100 per cent support of our government and if we had not had the 100 per cent support of Canadians from coast to coast, this pride I talked about would not have
developed. Our schools, our hometowns, and our families were all supporting us and expressing pride in what we were doing with the special force under United Nations sanction in Korea.
Today we have become involved in a United Nations sanctioned war in the Middle East together with a multinational force, over 30 of our allies. Madam Speaker, can you imagine for a moment-and I would ask all members in this House to imagine for one moment-how our troops will feel if there is continued division in this House of Commons? Can you imagine how families of the men and women of our Armed Forces in the gulf will feel if we do not leave this debate with less than the 100 per cent support of the House of Commons?
We must leave this debate with constructive, non-partisan, 100 per cent support. We must give total support, without reservation of any kind, to Canada. We must make sure our troops have the very best support and equipment possible. We must leave no question whatsoever in the minds of our forces that we stand 100 per cent with them.
I urge-indeed, I plead-with all members of the House to end this debate. Put partisanship behind us, regardless of our differences, and give 100 per cent support to our government and to our country, Canada.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment and pose a question of my colleague.
Certainly, I would like to remind my colleagues that three decades and three years ago, when accepting the Nobel Prize for Peace, Mr. Lester B. Pearson, one of our greatest Prime Ministers, said: "The grim fact is we prepare for war like precocious giants and for peace like retarded pygmies." Sadly, Mr. Pearson's words ring true today as this government has chosen war to end the illegal occupation of Kuwait by Iraq.
There is no question that the House and all Canadians have condemned the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. There is no question that the United Nations has condemned this invasion as well and we have supported the United Nations resolutions. But I would like to remind the House that the United Nations resolutions have given us two broad options: the peaceful approach to peace and the war approach to peace. Now that we are at war, let us not forget that peace is still obtainable through methods
January 17, 1991

other than purely military. I would like to underline "other than purely military".
Therefore, Canada must continue to explore peaceful methods of diplomacy and cease-fire to hasten the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. Let us keep all the channels of diplomacy open.
Would the hon. member agree to suggest to his government that the Security Council of the United Nations must be revisited to ensure a new order of world peace that is durable and secure for all generations to come? That is my first question, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize for stopping the hon. member, but this is only a five-minute period of question and comments. The hon. member has made a very thoughtful comment and has already asked a question. Perhaps we should allow the hon. member to answer his question.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I do not believe for one moment that all members of the multinational force under the United Nations are not seeking through the United Nations and making every effort possible to put an end to the war that is there.
I would remind my hon. friend that the Korean war started out as a peacekeeping mission. It was a function of peacekeeping. One country-North Korea-had invaded another country-South Korea. A peacekeeping force was called a peacekeeping action at the time.
I am suggesting that this is absolutely not any different. It is a peacekeeping action. It is one to restore peace and stability in the Middle East. It is one to maintain collective security in the world and we are functioning under the United Nations to do exactly that.
Of course, the countries contained in the multinational UN force at the present time are making every effort to see that this is brought together in the quickest time possible.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I am very interested in the comments of the hon. member. I know that he had personal experience with the Canadian Armed Forces and the Common-
Govemment Orders
wealth forces in Korea, where I also served but as a civilian. I well recall the many Canadian boys who came into hospital with legs chopped off and many other terrible things that happened.
I revisited Korea, as I am sure he did, on the 35th anniversary. The thing that hit me going back was the question of what was achieved in that war? That is what I want to ask him.
There were hundreds of people killed-thousands if we look at all the Koreans. We had terrible situations with refugees. A whole generation of children had their lives put in terrible risk. Yet, now, if we go back to Korea, the people are sitting exactly on the demilitarized zone, almost at the spot where they started. There is still a military presence there. This was a civil war that we intervened in.
I would like the hon. member to explain to me, for goodness sakes, what was the value of that war? What was achieved, aside from devastation and death?


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I would like to very humbly correct my hon. friend. After the Second World War, Korea was divided into North and South Korea. It was two countries: one country under the communist domination, and the other one under western domination. It was not a civil war in the sense that she would portray it.
What we had was exactly the same case. We had one country, North Korea, invading another country, South Korea.
What was achieved? I would suggest that North Korea was pushed back, after the Chinese entered the conflagration, to exactly the line that was drawn after the Second World War, the 38th parallel. North Korea now exists under communist domination and dictatorship.
South Korea has gone very far in the democratic process. It has an elected democratic assembly. We see it is now prosperous. I think the people in South Korea were very appreciative-and still are appreciative when I visit South Korea-of the contribution that was made by the United Nations forces, and particularly Canadians.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, two days ago I sat down and prepared a 20-minute speech to make on this occasion. I was then ask to amend it and make it into a 10-minute speech.
Before I could make that speech, war broke out, so I thought I would have to make another speech. But I looked this one over and really there is no difference. There is no difference between what I was going to say two days ago or yesterday and what I want to say now. The reasons have not changed. The reasons are the same, I feel, for us being where we are and engaged in this war. I would like to share some of those reasons with members of the House.
Most countries in the world hold to the concept that taking territory by conquest is unacceptable international behaviour. Most states operate by the principle that smaller independent neighbours have the right to exist. Most states also abhor the use or even the manufacture of chemical weapons. A great number of the world's nations, a growing number in the past two years, are dedicated to democracy, a free market economy, and the human rights for their citizens.
Then, there are the Saddam Husseins. The Saddam Husseins of this world are the bloody tyrants at home who cling to power through the use of terror and torture and are ruthless bullies and marauders among their weaker neighbours.
Last year at this time, the world appeared to be poised on the threshold of a new and promising era when we could finally say that the cold war had ended. Saddam Hussein brought myself and a lot of other people back to a hard, grim reality that this world remains a dangerous and volatile place, where petty dictators armed to the teeth with sophisticated conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction pose a serious threat to their immediate neighbours, and more and more to the world in general.
There is no doubt in my mind that the world is at a crossroads. Either we quickly and decisively continue to co-ordinate our response to these increasingly dangerous breaches of international peace, or we stand back and allow regional dictators to establish and abide by their own rules.
Since August 2, Saddam Hussein has had 135 days to withdraw from Kuwait. He used that time to take
hostages; pillage Kuwait; violate the people of Kuwait; threaten Israel, Saudi Arabia and any other country which condemned the invasion; and built up his military forces in Kuwait and Iraq.
Let me dwell for a moment on what Saddam Hussein has done in what he now calls Iraq's nineteenth province. Reports coming out of Kuwait and from refugees and departing hostages indicate that the invasion was followed by widespread looting, rape, and murder. Amnesty International estimates that 7,000 people may have been killed and that another 20,000 are missing. After crushing all but minor pockets of resistance, Iraqi forces began systematically dismantling Kuwait and removing equipment, food, luxury goods, captured weapons, et cetera, back to Iraq.
Eyewitness accounts of the conditions of detainees taken into Iraqi custody and later released also suggest the widespread use of torture. Scores of detainees are reported to have simply disappeared. The rape of Kuwait is all the evidence I need that we are dealing here with much larger issues than protecting oil supplies for the west or blindly going along with the Americans to help protect U.S. strategic interests in the gulf.
It is nonsense and intellectually dishonest for anyone to suggest that this is some sort of American adventure or some manifestation of U.S. imperialism. The British, Egyptians, the French, Syrians, the Dutch, Qataris, Australians, Pakistanis, Saudis, Soviets, Argentinians, Bangladeshis and forces from about 20 other nations are actively contributing to the international effort to get Iraq out of Kuwait.
The multinational response undertaken last evening underscores that the gulf crisis is much more than a threat against the security of nations of the west. Certainly, it is this, to be sure. But it is also a threat against moderate Muslim regimes across the Middle East and North Africa as well as to Israel, western Europe, eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, the United States and even Canada. Above all, it is a threat to the poorest nations of the world, which are much more dependent on gulf oil than the United States and much more vulnerable to hostile actions by their larger neighbours than are the wealthy industrialized nations.
January 17, 1991

Over the years, Canadian soldiers have justifiably won a tremendous reputation as peacekeepers. But there is more than this to being a supporter of the principles of the UN. There are occasions when to be a good peacekeeper, one must be a peacemaker. This is what I hope and pray is taking place right now.
It is clear what Canadian forces are doing in the Persian Gulf. As of yesterday evening, we are helping "to maintain international peace and security", as outlined in Article I of the UN charter, by preventing further aggression by Saddam Hussein. As of yesterday evening, because of the intransigence of Saddam Hussein, we are in a position to fulfil the other facets of the first principle, which is "to take 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".
Critics have argued that taking action against Saddam Hussein is a cynical double standard and that the world in general and the west in particular have not seen fit to respond to acts of aggression and breaches of the peace and international law in the past. Are they saying we should do nothing now? Should we not seize opportunities to uphold international peace, security and law when possible? If not, when? If not Canada, our allies and others who believe in international order, then who will be left to maintain the peace on these occasions?
I have never doubted that in the end, if Saddam did not back down, Canadians would be there to play their part. I for one know that the Canadian men and women in the forces in the gulf will do their jobs well and with courage when they are called upon to fight. Diplomatic moves were attempted in an effort to resolve this crisis. Unfortunately, they were rebuffed by Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein must not profit from aggression and he must not be seen to profit from aggression.
We are unfortunately forced to use all necessary means, as resolution 678 states, to implement the will of the international community. We know that Saddam Hussein did not back down. I think it would be unconscionable now to allow such a dictator, who is armed with more than 5,000 main battle tanks, modern fighter aircraft, artillery, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons and a one-million-man army and who has a track record of aggression, brutality and terrorism both at home and abroad, off the hook now.
Government Orders
The multinational UN force simply had no choice. Saddam Hussein has shown a willingness to use force to grab territory, to intimidate his neighbours, to attack his own people and his enemies with mustard gas and cyanide and to blackmail every nation in the region within range of Iraqi missiles.
What we know is that Saddam Hussein must be stopped. We know there is no chance of peace in the Middle East if every well-armed dictator is given a free hand to satisfy his territorial, economic or political ambitions or to coerce and intimidate their militarily weaker neighbours. We also know that if Saddam is not wholly checked now, then Iraq will go on increasing its military capabilities and developing chemical and nuclear weapons to be used against any rival or soft target, even against his own people.
Kuwait sustained and supported ordinary Palestinians on the West Bank when poorer Jordan decided it could no longer afford to do so. This support has inevitably ended since Iraq's invasion. Iraq's petro dollars have not been going to keep Palestinians alive; they have been going into Saddam Hussein's war machine.
At the same time, Saddam Hussein has done all in his power to avoid coming up with any reasonable initiatives to settle the Middle East problem once and for all. Saddam's policy has been to milk the plight of the Palestinians for what it was worth to him; nothing more. This is the enemy the international community faces and under which the Iraqi people themselves have lived for 22 years. This is the enemy the world is confronting and whom the Canadian men and women in our forces in the gulf, along with the other members of the international community who have rallied against Saddam Hussein, must confront.
Madam Speaker, they must not fail. We in this House must be very careful also not to fail them.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. [Translation]


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, it seems to me there is a flagrant inconsistency in the hon. member's presentation.

The inconsistency in his position is as follows: He did address the issue of not having acted before when there was aggression toward another neighbour. But why did we not intervene when the Russians went into Afghanistan? Why did we not intervene when the Chinese went into Tibet? Is it not because clearly they are giants in the

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
world? Consequently there is not a great deal we feel we could have done. Or if we had chosen to do something, we would have been really up to our necks in very great difficulty.
With respect to arms of destruction, why is it that we are not going after the U.S.S.R., China, Japan, France, Israel, South Africa, Libya or Syria? They have arms of massive destruction and they are not all countries we consider our allies.
I would like to focus on what we should do now that we are in this conflict. Will my hon. colleague tell me whether or not he believes his government's priority will be to find a peaceful solution to this particular war now? Surely this has to be our focus today, tomorrow and until we find that solution.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the floor for his question. As I have thought many times, all of us in this House attack this one problem from many different angles, but really everyone in this House wants precisely the same thing.
Getting to the point he asked regarding whether or not we are going to make a proposal, we have been proposing peace for 135 days. Not only Canadians and not only our Secretary of State for External Affairs, but also the Americans and, as you know, the Secretary General of the United Nations as recently as two days ago have done everything over the last 135 days. But all it did was prove that there was no possibility of resolving this matter by peaceful negotiations.


An hon. member:: What about when the conflict began?


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend asks what about when the conflict began. To the best of my knowledge, attempts to resolve it were begun immediately. He also made reference to the other countries that have all these destructive weapons. He made reference to the Soviet Union, which has all these destructive weapons.
What the hon. member did was to show to the House and to everybody a good example of where peaceful negotiations did work. The reason we are sitting down with the Soviets and the reason some of us can go to
Moscow and sit and talk to the Soviet minister of national defence is that negotiations have worked. The Berlin wall is down. All of the other countries with the massive weapons of destruction to which he alludes have those weapons, but they did not use them in the way Saddam Hussein decided to use his.
I do not know whether I have addressed all the questions of the hon. member, Madam Speaker, but I have tried.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member. Although his speech was prepared a couple of days ago, he felt it was still relevant today. At that very time, over 100 students from the high schools in my riding were in my office writing letters to the Prime Minister and to the hon. member's government. I have just two of the 100 letters here from which I would like to read a couple of lines. Then I will put the question.
Becky Bourque writes:
We are about 100 of B.C.'s youth. We-I personally would like to live my life to its fullest, not having to wony about war or having to buty 3 of my family members that are in Saudi Arabia right now.
There is a second letter to Mr. Mulroney:
We have spent the last 2 days protesting the war in front of Municipal hall. Around 400 people walked out of school and walked 6 miles into town to say what we had to say. Unfortunately so far it has not done any real help. We are the youth of this world and we will be the ones to live with your mistakes. Please don't make us have to live with this one.
It takes courage to stand up for peace like that when you are a student.
We have had some incredible reports on the results of the first strikes that took place. For example, the surface-to-surface missile threat to Israel has been successfully eliminated, they believe. The Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological production complexes are expected to have been damaged or destroyed. Virtually the entire Iraqi air defence system seems to have been successfully disrupted.
My question is: With those pieces of information, would it not seem to make sense to take this as now being an opportunity to move for peace and to ask Mr. Hussein to consider peace, instead of beating this into the ground to the point where there is absolutely nothing
January 17, 1991

left in terms of the individual people? I am not concerned about Mr. Hussein, but I am certainly concerned about the men and women who live there.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments and her questions. As I said, we all want the same thing. We are going about it in different ways.
The question she just posed was whether it would be better for us to seek peace with Saddam Hussein. Who phoned Saddam Hussein the day before the attack? President Bush spoke to him personally, according to reports in the press yesterday. He phoned in a last-ditch attempt to plead with him to attempt to come to a peaceful solution. I think we all want peace, and I think everyone has done everything possible. She talks about-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately I will have to interrupt the hon. member, as the period for questions and comments has now expired.

At this time, pursuant to Standing Order 38, I might advise the House about the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment: the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona-Lithuania; the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James-Justice; and the hon. member for Hamilton East-Energy.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Victoria.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, before I get to the main burden of my remarks, I would just like to take this opportunity to set the record straight in respect of the views and contribution of one of the most respected members ever to have served in this Parliament, the Hon. Stanley Knowles who presently serves as an honorary officer of this House, regarding the issue.
The Prime Minister seems incapable of avoiding partisanship, even at these moments. In his effort the other day to try to bolster his case he quoted first from past Liberal Prime Ministers in order to suggest that they would have supported the government's policy in this respect. Then he went on to quote Mr. Knowles from June 1950. He said, among other things of Mr. Knowles' views, the following, as reported at page 16990 of Hansard.:
Government Orders
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".
Then he proceeded to quote Mr. Knowles further from June 1950 and his comments in respect of the Korean crisis.
The clear implication of the Prime Minister's statement is that Mr. Knowles and the CCF at that point supported the military action and would have supported the military action today.
He added words in the course of his statement that Mr. Knowles never used, namely the words "the military action as it then was". I say that is a mark of complete disrespect to Mr. Knowles. I think the Prime Minister owes Mr. Knowles and this House an apology.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John F. Brewin: I should say that through a family connection Mr. Knowles is quite close to me personally. In fact he married my wife and myself in his capacity as a clergyman. I feel very close to him. He phoned me the other day and commented on this issue. He asked me to convey to our caucus and to the House his deep feeling that this war in the gulf was wrong and that this House should oppose the war.
The Prime Minister compounded his error not only by misquoting Mr. Knowles in 1950 but using Mr. Knowles, who is not able to speak for himself in this House, to buttress his argument when in fact Mr. Knowles continues to be a passionate spokesperson for peace.
I rise to put our party's position on the floor of this House today, the first day after hostilities have finally broken out in the gulf. My feeling last night-and I am sure it is shared by all Canadians and I know by all members of this House-was that somehow we had failed, that war is failure. This war, in particular coming as it does at the end of a century that has seen the most devastating wars in the history of humanity, is a war that simply should not have happened. This war is a terrible, serious and tragic mistake.


John Carnell Crosbie: Speak to Saddam Hussein.


John F. Brewin: The Minister for International Trade rises and says: "Speak to Saddam Hussein". Whatever one's views as to how we got here and how we are getting out

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
of here, the fact is that the war is a terrible mistake. The question before us now-


An hon. member:: You know why it is.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member deserves the courtesy of being heard and listened to.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, one would think in the seriousness of the issue before this House, that the minister could give all members an opportunity to put their views on the table.
I have not attacked the personal views of the members opposite. I have simply said that this war was a tragic mistake. That is a view which I say is shared by all Canadians. It is a view that I think causes us all to approach the issues in front of us, I would hope, with a sense of sombre contemplation.
The issue before us now is simply: What are we going to do with it? The war has started. It is a terrible and tragic war. The question now is: What can Canada's contribution be to bring this war to a swift conclusion? What can we do to prepare for the day when the war and hostilities end in the Middle East?
We have four basic positions to put to the House. I say, before I launch on the four points, that in our view the war is a mistake and wrong. This view we held before the war began and it is a view we hold now. We oppose this war and we oppose Canadian participation in the war.
The first thing the government and this House should consider is a peace initiative. Clearly Canada is not the centre of the universe. Canada, acting alone, cannot change history and cannot ensure peace. However, Canada is a respected member of the United Nations, has contacts throughout the world, and can begin to work with all other countries of the world which share the objective that this war must be brought to an end quickly to try to explore any possible avenues for peace.
The American generals tell us that last night's raid on Iraq and Kuwait devastated the Iraqi air force and Iraq's capacity to engage in offensive action. If that is correct, now is the time to take at least a brief pause and see if there is a possibility of getting a response from Saddam Hussein. It is clear that Saddam Hussein did not respond to the threat of war. It is a major miscalculation, I may
say, by the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada among others.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Government of Canada initially supported the build-up of troops because it believed mistakenly that that threat would cause Saddam Hussein to back away. The alternative response of preparing the world to accept long-run sanctions was really never given a chance as the governments of the world believed that the threat of force would have the desired effect on Saddam Hussein. That did not happen, and Iraq has now lived through 24 hours of bombing from the United States and the other countries in the region.
The time then comes to say whether the opportunity should be given to Iraq, perhaps through the agency of other Arab countries, perhaps through the agency of such countries as even Canada, to give some indication of the conditions under which it would withdraw from Kuwait and satisfy the objectives of the United Nations. That is the first initiative that should be taken.
Second, Canada must begin to prepare to provide humanitarian assistance to the victims of war in the region, to the victims of this crisis in the region. This humanitarian assistance may be required during the period of hostilities, or it may be required when hostilities are over. But the world is going to have to prepare for the eventuality of dealing with the victims of this war.
There are already migrant workers trapped in Iraq. There are refugees in Jordan. The people of the Horn of Africa are suffering a completely unrelated famine and because of the war, relief supplies are unable to get through. We have heard reports from various relief agencies that they simply cannot get the shipping through to bring relief to the starving millions of the Horn of Africa. It is the responsibility of this government and of the people of Canada, as well as other governments, to seek ways to get that relief through.
Third, it is important that we plan generally for the aftermath in the region. This war must end some day, hopefully sooner rather than later. The issue then becomes what happens? How will the area be governed? How will the area be policed? Clearly it is going to be important, in repairing the terrible damage in human, environmental and geopolitical terms that this war has created, to be able to have governments and other agencies move in quickly and in a planned way to provide the necessary relief and to begin to clean up the damage,
January 17, 1991

either directly under the United Nations or perhaps through other agencies and other organizations.
It ought to be possible to bring in engineers to deal with the damage: rebuilding highways, bridges, damaged buildings, water systems, and sewer systems. It ought to be possible and we ought to be ready to move in quickly with medical supplies and services to deal with the injuries and disease that will occur in the region. Simple food, water, shelter and supplies will be necessary, and Canada should begin today to plan for that.
We had a briefing this morning from Department of National Defence officials who had to confess to us that this was not the major issue on their minds at this stage and that very few resources were being made available for this kind of planning. I say it is an important role for Canada, a far more important role than to be involved militarily in this serious, mistaken war. Canada should begin preparing along with other nations through the United Nations for the aftermath. Let us simply deal with the geopolitical damage that is being done, which is another reason I may add for our not being involved as active combatants.
Bombs from the United States of America, France, Britain and other countries are being dropped on the people of Iraq and the people of Kuwait. This will exacerbate the feelings of intense hostility that the people of that region already feel toward the western world. It will be essential, if we are going to repair the rift that this will cause between the Arab world and the rest of the world, particularly the western world, that countries like Canada be ready to move in quickly to demonstrate that countries from the west do not simply involve themselves in bombing the people of that region, but that countries of the western world are ready to help in a humanitarian way. We must be ready to plan that help. We must be ready to work with whoever are the survivors politically in beginning to rebuild the political structures of that region. We must be ready as well to work to achieve some of the long-range solutions to the problem.
There has been a lot of talk about an international peace conference and about linkage. That issue has now passed because of the beginning of hostilities, but the
Government Orders
problem remains and will have to be dealt with, with compassion and vision.
The fundamental hyprocrisy of the western world through the United Nations, in moving so quickly on this issue when it has simply failed to deal with the just demands by the Palestinians in that region to deal with the resolutions of the United Nations calling on the state of Israel to act, cannot last past the end of this war. It will be essential that the world community begin quickly to deal with that. Canada must play a role.
Finally, let me say that we must look at a particular and a new role for our troops in the area. The motion that we put to the House yesterday asked for the House to approve the view that Canada must not be involved in the military action against Iraq and the Iraqi positions in Kuwait. This remains our position. It is therefore necessary in our view that our troops become disengaged from the role of combatant in the area.
The government is moving in exactly the opposite direction. It was made clear today by General de Chas-tellain, the Chief of Defence Staff, that our troops are in fact engaged even more actively than before in the assault on Iraq; that is to say, they have offensive roles in assisting the bombers going in, giving them escort and providing other support for the assault troops who are attacking the Iraqi positions.
Whatever one thinks of the involvement in the past in support of sanctions, it now becomes essential that Canadian military activity disengage itself from involvement in this war, which is itself arguably a breach of the charter of the United Nations. We must therefore redefine the role of our troops. I submit that in the agenda I have laid out on behalf of our party, there is ample role for the troops and for the forces we have in the area.
Instead of becoming involved in the war, they must begin to prepare to be involved in the peace. Instead of being involved in attack, they must be involved in humanity and must be ready to assist those who are the victims of war, rather than to create war itself. These are solemn obligations, and this is a difficult period for Canadians.
Canadians understand the terrible cost of this war. The overwhelming majority wanted our government to speak more clearly against the war. The war has now

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
started. Quite naturally, Canadians remain unhappy with this war and outraged that this should happen. They want our government to make a clear statement that Canada simply does not accept that this war is either necessary or justified.
Canadians also have great admiration for the professionalism of our men and women who are there. All of the comments we have made are not intended in any way to detract from it or from our personal concern for then-safety. We do not ask for a new role for our troops because we want to remove them from an area of danger. Canadians, throughout our history, have been prepared in appropriate cases to risk their lives for the values this country stands for. Ever since the end of the Second World War, under the flag of the United Nations, our troops have served in dangerous peacekeeping missions.
We do not ask for a redefinition of their role in order to protect them. Rather, we think that as representatives of this country, our forces have a better role to play than to be aiding in the bombing of Iraq and Kuwait. It is for this reason that we call on the House to urge and direct this government, even at this hour, to change from the course it has been set on, to listen to the Canadian people and to restore Canada's place as a peacekeeper in a world that so sorely needs it.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, let me begin by assuring the hon. member that there are many colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party, including myself, who for many years have monitored the situation in the Middle East. I personally have travelled to Iraq, I have spoken to Iraqi officials over the years, and I have visited the parliament. When I hear of bombings in Baghdad, it has real meaning to me. I know the situation there and I know the people there.
The member has said this action is neither necessary nor justified. I want to direct a few comments to this point because he has indicated the dire consequences of war. I hope he does not suggest for one minute that any member of this House of Commons is not aware of the dire consequences of bombing, death and destruction. He does all of us a disservice if he suggests for one minute that anybody in this House of Commons or anybody across this nation looks favourably upon that
kind of activity. Of course it is abhorrent to us all. The question is whether this action is justified.
I want to say this to the hon. member and to all members of the New Democratic Party: I have heard President Saddam Hussein characterized by Stephen Lewis, former Ambassador to the United Nations, as a psychotic person. I have heard him refer to Saddam Hussein time and time again as a madman. The leader of the New Democratic Party herself admitted that at some point in time force may be necessary.
I want to direct the hon. member's attention to this: His party and others argue that sanctions might work, that they should be given time to work, and that approaches should be made by other people, other places and other times in order to change the course of this action and in order to deny the need for any forceful action. One of his principal party supporters has described Saddam Hussein as a psychotic personality. His own party members have described him as a madman out of control. How does he expect to appeal to that kind of psyche? How does he expect to appeal to that kind of person to end hostilities and to listen to reason? How can you reason with a person whom you have characterized as being psychotic?
Does the hon. member not realize that the Speaker of the Parliament of Iraq has said that 18 million Iraqis are prepared to die in this cause because they are believers? How can he talk about peaceful initiatives? How can he talk about sensible presentation? Why will he not admit that this is a situation that cannot be coped with in those ways, get on to justifying what has to be done and back the United Nations actions?


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the interjection from the member because it does really get to the nub of the issue between our position and that of the government.
The real issue is how to deal with Saddam Hussein. The issue is not whether Saddam Hussein is a psychotic. We accept that definition. We accept that anyone who would use chemical warfare on his own people is psychotic. We agree that he has one of the worst Amnesty International records. The mere question perhaps implies that the member somehow is more fervent in his opposition to Saddam Hussein than we are. This simply is not the case.
January 17, 1991

The issue is how to deal with Saddam Hussein. How do you deal with Iraq? That is the issue, and the member agrees. The question then is how to deal with him in a way that is as consistent as possible with the United Nations charter. While it fundamentally calls for peace, it understands, however, the need to escalate the various efforts that the world community can make to enforce world law and the rule of law internationally.
This brings us very quickly to the issue of sanctions. Again we all agreed initially in this House that sanctions were valuable and important, so sanctions were imposed. In terms of the compliance with those sanctions, they have proven to be the most effective sanctions ever imposed in the history of the world.
There are 115 cases of sanctions since the end of the First World War. A very learned study published in The New York Times and again in The Globe and Mail demonstrates in detail-if the member would do me the courtesy; I gave him the courtesy-that these are the most effective sanctions since the First World War and in fact since sanctions were recorded.
These sanctions operated on a country that is particularly vulnerable to sanctions. It has one major export, which is oil. The member shakes his head. It is really interesting that there has been simply no evidence placed on the table of this House of Commons or before a committee that would contradict the fundamental conclusions of this study.
Let me just deal with how it deals with dictators, which is the final point I wish to make. It has been suggested over and over again that dictators would not respond to this and that somehow Saddam Hussein would not respond to sanctions. Benito Mussolini is said to have confided to Hitler that, had the League of Nations included oil in its sanctions against Italy in 1935-36, he would have been forced to withdraw from Ethiopia in a week. This study concludes that if sanctions had had time to work, this war would not have been necessary. That is why we say this is an unnecessary war. That is why we say this is an unjustified war.


Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Victoria with great interest. As we have seen, Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, invaded its southern neighbour, Kuwait, a smaller country. While this is a
Government Orders
major concern to the world and to all Canadians, we are looking at this with interest. It attracted great world attention and resulted in an aggression by other countries against Saddam Hussein.
However, there are similar cases in which such things have been done. A prime example is Cyprus. In 1974, Turkish troops invaded the island of Cyprus and succeeded in taking over one-half of the island, resulting in many deaths and more than 2,000 disappearances. The United Nations has passed numerous resolutions condemning the Turkish action but did not even go so far as to impose sanctions or other punitive measures on Turkey. I have repeatedly questioned the government on the double standard.
I would like to know from the member for Victoria what his party's position is regarding the issue of Cyprus, because I have not heard it. Maybe they have commented on it, but I would like to hear with my own ears what his party's position is regarding Cyprus and what they are proposing to bring to this House in order to resolve the situation, which has been ongoing for 16 years.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I simply am not going to respond, much as I would love to do so and get into a discussion on Cyprus. Generally, our party has always supported any effort to bring peace to that troubled area as well as Canada's work in peacekeeping. We have sent delegations and so forth. But this is not the day to debate the question of Cyprus and to come to full grips with the issue. We believe there are many troubled areas in the world, but today the area of the world that needs our attention is the gulf. I would hope this House would keep its attention to that subject.


Jim Karygiannis: You have no position on Cyprus.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, just referring to the gulf, would the member for Victoria tell us: Does the NDP's position of non-involvement extend to the situation in which Saddam Hussein carries out his threat and attacks Israel? Does it mean the NDP would not allow Canadian forces to attack Iraq in order to end that type of travesty?


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the question because it permits me to clear up what may be a misconception, one I hope is not fostered by the hon. member. I am sure he is looking for information. Let me clarify it.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Our position as a party has always been in favour of collective security. It goes back to 1939. It goes back to the comments I earlier quoted by Mr. Knowles in support of collective security, and we support collective security to this day. We say it is entirely appropriate for forces to be in Saudi Arabia to prevent further aggression by Saddam Hussein. We have had no difficulty with that, and we entirely support the right of the State of Israel to defend itself. We say that the international community should be ready to defend the State of Israel from attack. This is what collective security means.
Our position, and I thought it was that of the Liberal Party as well, is: How do you roll back aggression that has already happened? When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on August 2, it became a fait accompli. How do you then roll it back? Fundamentally it gets down to two choices. Either you move military might in to roll back Iraq and to "liberate" Kuwait, or you use sanctions and you apply pressure through sanctions that will change the behaviour of that government.
All the studies we have referred to have said that such action as economic sanctions would have been effective to change the behaviour of that government and to secure the objectives of the United Nations by removing Iraq from Kuwait. Our argument is that military force was not the appropriate way of righting the breach of international law on August 2. But we fully support the use of force to further protect countries in the region, and we have always been in favour of collective security.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I was prepared to speak yesterday, but the circumstances under which we were prepared to speak have changed. However, the motion that we have before us has not changed.
The motion states:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
I might say, Madam Speaker, that Canada is at a crossroads in its life as a nation. Many people have spoken about whether or not we should be part of this United Nations force in the Persian Gulf. I, for one, am in full agreement with it. I was in agreement last fall. I
was in agreement last summer. I am still in agreement now that fighting has commenced.
Canada continues to be an active participant in the UN. We are part of the international community and as such we have certain responsibilities that we must meet.
The Prime Minister stated quite clearly and rightly that the violation of the sovereignty of one state by another is of national interest to Canada. We must remember that the UN was created at the end of the Second World War to foster international co-operation and to provide a forum through which disputes could be resolved and, hopefully, war prevented.
An act of aggression has taken place. The sovereignty of a nation has been violated. This violation contradicts the accepted principles of international affairs. It flies in the face of the international world order that is represented by the UN.
The world has expressed its outrage through the UN by saying that this aggression cannot go unchallenged. Order has been disrupted and it is in the world's interest and in Canada's interest that this order be restored. Unless we act to preserve the order that allows countries to deal with one another, we face chaos.
The UN continues to be the appropriate vehicle by which sovereign states can govern their relationships. Canada is committed to the UN because the UN reflects the belief that Canadians share, the belief in the need for law and order.
The UN and its members are necessarily concerned with the violation of the sovereignty of one member state by another. International order has been jeopardized and as such the UN has taken action to express its firm belief that Iraq has acted in an unacceptable manner. The UN has taken action to restore international peace and security and to restore international order, and has given its permission.
Canada has joined in an international effort in support of the UN resolutions by committing personnel and materiel. We have sent the Canadian Armed Forces to the gulf to signify our support of the UN and our opposition to the violence and atrocities being perpetrated by Iraq upon Kuwait. Canadian lives are in jeopardy.
January 17, 1991

Yesterday there was the threat of war. Today there is a war. Canadians could well be casualties. Iraq's aggression upon Kuwait is a very serious matter. The UN's response, Canada's response, is a very serious matter.
I sit in this House to represent the views of the constituents of Fraser Valley East and to represent the views of Canadians. Canadians have expressed their concern, a concern I share. We are concerned about the lives that have been lost to date and the lives that could be lost. The lives of Canadian forces men and women are in the balance and we have called upon the Armed Forces to lay their lives on the line. We have done this because we recognize that without the principles of law and order and without tangible values society devolves into barbarism and civilization self-destructs.
At this point I would like to say something about our Armed Forces personnel serving in the gulf. They follow an honourable profession and are doing what they have been called upon to do because that is their duty.
These men and women have volunteered to join the forces, not from some Rambo-type motive, but because it is in this way they feel they can best serve their country. In times of peace they are often ignored, but in times of war we seek them out to defend us. They have never let us down and will not do so in the hostilities that are taking place now.
Let us not underestimate what we are asking them to do. While I am sure each of us and every one of them has always known they might be called upon to take part in a war, until now it has seemed a remote possibility. However, now that war is a reality, we are asking them to fulfil the hardest part of their obligation to Canada. In doing this, we have a commitment to them and it is that we support them both with the means to carry out their duties and by our moral support. We have to make sure they know we back them wholeheartedly.
I want our servicemen and women in the gulf and around the world to know that they are always in our thoughts and that we thank them for taking on this onerous task. Their professionalism and dedication to duty is not in doubt and, whatever happens in the coming
Government Orders
days, we all pray for their safety and a speedy resolution to the conflict. To the Canadian forces, I say, thank you.
Canada enshrines its beliefs in our bodies of laws. Our institutions reflect who we are and what we stand for. Our support of the UN and the actions that we have taken to date on the Persian Gulf are an extension of this.
In Canada, we have safe institutions which protect our citizens because we have a society with certain values by which we live. When we support the UN, we act upon our beliefs, we achieve a peace of mind, and we give meaning to our beliefs. What Canada is doing, in this United Nations action, is putting into practice our pretension as a nation.
We, in this Chamber, are aware of the costs involved with this war. We are also aware of the costs should Iraq be allowed to benefit from its violation and aggression of Kuwait. We do not take this decision to support the United Nations lightly. Should we fail to contain aggression between states in this conflict, we will signal to other renegade leaders that their blatant disregard for the sovereignty of others could go unchallenged.
We will signal that the only cost to be incurred in violating another state and in perpetuating atrocities upon the citizens of another state is a tongue-lashing by the international community. In good conscience, we cannot allow this kind of message to be sent. If we fail to back our beliefs with actions, our beliefs become worthless. All the good words in the world are meaningless without action. Our credibility is on the line. I do not mean our credibility as a world actor, although that is a consideration, I mean our credibility as a society. It is our credibility to ourselves that we are preserving.
Canada acts within the UN because that organization reflects our beliefs in civilized order. I do not view this situation lightly but we cannot turn our backs on Kuwait. We cannot allow Iraq's aggression to go unchallenged. I am well aware of the gravity of this situation and it is with this awareness that I lend my full support to the motion that we are debating here today.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, the debate appears to be centred on whether or not the sanctions, if they had been given more time, would have

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
driven Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, as opposed to the current military action.
I wonder if my hon. colleague would respond to the following. The former Chief of the Defence Staff has said: "Nothing is getting in or out of Iraq by sea.. .There can be no doubt that the swift and united action of much of the world. . .is deterring Iraq from further aggression and increasing the chances of a solution to the affair without further aggression." That was before the war was started.
Addresses by U.S. Senators Mitchell and Kennedy identify testimony from President Bush, Secretary of State Baker, and CIA Director Webster indicating that sanctions are working.
Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in a letter to John Bosley, on December 28, 1990, that "these are the most effective and comprehensive sanctions ever applied by the international community".
General Schwarzkopf, Commander of the U.S. Forces in the Persian Gulf, and U.S. Senator Sam Nunn have also issued statements in support of continued economic sanctions.
Finally, in a study of over 100 cases examining how well sanctions had performed, Gary Hufbauer and Kimberly Elliott wrote in an article in The New York Times just a couple of days ago that "Sanctions Will Bite-and Soon". "Far from inconclusive, the evidence suggests that sanctions will begin to bite some time in the spring or early summer, with a high probability of forcing Iraq from Kuwait as early as the fall."
With all of that evidence that sanctions and the embargo were having a very detrimental effect on Iraq, how does he respond to this evidence that I just shared with the House?


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I must point out to the hon. member that he is dealing with some of the motions that were before us yesterday which we voted on in the House. The motion that we are debating today is whether or not the House will continue to support the actions of the UN. That is the motion before us. We are dealing with the motions that were in the UN, number 660 right through to 678.
The debate today is not whether or not sanctions had been given long enough to take further action, but whether or not the House is supportive of the actions and the motions made in the UN last fall and last summer. That is what I was debating and that is what I
was talking about. I am in full support of us endorsing those motions.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to question the member for Fraser Valley East, if I may.
He has indicated in his speech that we have looked at slapping these people on the wrists when they ignore United Nations resolutions. I take exception to that remark because in fact there was a lot more than that done.
Again, I would like to refer to the information from the intelligence service: "This assumption ignores the striking evidence given by the Central Intelligence Agency, Director William Webster, before the U.S. Congress," as reported in The Manchester Guardian Weekly of December 23. The CIA director said "that Iraq exports had been slashed by 97 per cent, even greater than the cut in imports which had been reduced to a mere 10 per cent of the trade before Saddam Hussein annexed Kuwait. The Baghdad regime is inexplorably running out of commodity on which its future depends, money. Oil revenues are the drip-feed of Baghdad's life support system. With them, the dictatorship will inevitably perish." That is the comments of the CIA.
Here we are debating a United Nations resolution which we have supported with regard to the sanctions and giving them an opportunity to work. We have now reversed that decision as a country and gone to war.
I say to the hon. member when I question him, is that merely a slap on the wrist, or should we have not continued on with those sanctions to bring this dictator to his knees?


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises a very worthwhile question. What the hon. member must remember is that sanctions can only work for so long and that we also have a coalition of countries that were supportive of the resolutions that were passed in the United Nations. We have no way of knowing as to whether or not these sanctions would have taken the desired effect within the foreseeable future or within years as to what was going on.
We do know that Kuwait was still completely under the domination of the Iraqis. A country had been invaded. We know that the surveillance was indicating that they were strengthening and fortifying themselves in Kuwait. They were setting themselves up for a very, very long stay in the country of Kuwait. Action had to be taken in
January 17, 1991

order to bring this to a halt and to get Iraq out of Kuwait. That is what this is all about.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Madam Speaker, the tragic reality of hostilities which commenced in the Persian Gulf last night have made this resolution and debate very much redundant today.
This is particularly so because all members have quite properly and patriotically pledged their support, hopes and prayers on behalf of Canada's Armed Forces now engaged in the conflict.
It is important that such a spirit of united concern be displayed for our men and women who are serving there and for their families remaining here at home.
I take considerable pride that on such a serious occasion and for such a compelling purpose, partisan lines of conflict can be set aside and we can come together as parliamentarians in common cause.
Having said that, I think it is also important to be clear about our positions as we have led up to the circumstances in which we now find ourselves.
The hard decisions of commitment are now behind us. There has been vigorous and legitimate debate as those decisions have been reached, first in November when the government's position for Canada to support the United Nations in the Persian Gulf was adopted and, more recently, in the past two days as that position was to be reaffirmed.
The record will show clearly how views were expressed, and I will deal only with my own. I am not naive about the party system, and I have had extensive experience with and respect for the necessity and values of party discipline in financial matters and on normal policy issues.
Frankly though, I have been troubled by the implications of opposition calls this week for a free vote as though to say that members of any party would be willing to subordinate themselves and their consciences to the party line on such a high moral issue of principles such as this.
The facts are that no self-respecting member of Parliament should be easily led between war and peace. From the government side, I can only tell you that the
Government Orders
leadership has been superlative both on the public stage and in the privacy of caucus.
The performance of the Prime Minister, of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and of the Minister of National Defence have been exemplified in their respective presentations to this House of Commons over the last few months about these matters but never more full of logic, conscience and commitment than in these most recent days.
If there is unanimity on the government side about the difficult decisions which have been made, and I can only assert my own position, it is because those decisions are believed to be the right ones and not because they have been imposed. Free vote or not, I repeat that the choices between war and peace cannot be forced upon the integrity of any individual unless he or she is prepared to accept them.
In the original debate, on November 28 to be exact, I spoke in support of the resolution for Canada's participation in the United Nations actions to expel Iraq from Kuwait.
With time and events now having overtaken us, I can say again with conscience and conviction that Canada has no alternative but to act with its allies in the United Nations to stop Saddam Hussein's aggression now or to risk a greater catastrophe in the future.
In that first debate, I stated very clearly my own instincts to work for peace at almost any cost and to avoid conflict, except as a very last resort. I said with equal clarity, however, that although peace is the goal we all seek, history has taught us that sometimes to ensure peace or to restore it, we must even be prepared to fight in war.
Such a peace was lost, and such a war was started by Saddam Hussein on August 2, 1990. Now, finally, more than five months later on January 16, 1991, Canada has joined with other members of the United Nations to turn his invading armies out of Kuwait.
I supported that role for Canada when I spoke in November, and I continue to support that role now.
There were personal decisions that I did not reach easily or without deep, personal reflection. However, I want to make it abundantly clear that they were my own and were not in any way imposed upon me.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
During the intervening weeks over the Christmas season and into the new year, I have watched and listened anxiously along with all other hon. members and with all Canadians as events have unfolded in the Middle East.
In so doing, I have continued to search deeply for any contribution I might be able to offer toward resolution of the Persian Gulf crisis. Regrettably, I have not been able to much improve on the position which I took in the original debate.
Simply put, the order of law must be preserved throughout the world. The United Nations is the best vehicle for accomplishing that goal and armed force must be used to do so as a last resort in the failure of all other alternatives.
Last night the combined wisdom and judgment of the leaders in the United Nations coalition, led clearly by the United States, which has by far the greatest tangible commitment to the mission, determined that the balance of other alternatives had failed in Kuwait and decided to proceed with the final option of armed force.
I have respect for the concept of collective security represented by this unprecedented alliance under the mantle of the United Nations and, therefore, albeit with despair and regret, I accept and support the judgment and decisions which have been made and are now being exercised.
There has not really been much division in this House about the order of law or about the importance of the United Nations. Where we have had difficulty, and the issue which has really been before us is the course of ultimate action that must be taken to live within those principles of law and order and the work of the United Nations. How is the order of law to be preserved, how is the United Nations to accomplish that purpose? To a very considerable extent there has even been a consensus in the House for the unwelcome prospect that armed force would ultimately be contemplated to preserve the order of law when clearly there are no other effective alternatives.
I seem to have heard, or at least have gained the impression from listening to the leaders, that all parties in this Parliament would agree that at some point aggression must be met with force if there is no other way to stop it.
The Liberal Leader even hedged his earlier amendment with a proviso "at this time". The NDP Leader has also said clearly that she could conceive when force would be a final option. Surely, therefore, that means that no member in this House has a monopoly on the commitment to peace, nor does any member hold absolute purity about the prevention of war. We all share the quest for peace, but we all do seem to agree that force must ultimately be used if necessary to preserve that peace.
What we really have been debating are the questions of when and how the ultimate sanction of armed force should be used. That also puts the debate within the context of risk and responsibility for which there is a distinction within this House because only one party, the government, can make the final determination of risk and exercise the final act of responsibility. In the final analysis, the hard decisions must be made by the government, and that is not to complain, that is the government's duty.
Where there still does remain division in this House now that the time to use force has been determined is in whether Canada should remain committed to collaborate with its allies in the application of that force. I reject that we should withdraw our forces to seek only a peacekeeping role. Canada is not a neutral country. We must do our share to fulfil our responsibilities and our commitments in full alliance with other members of the United Nations coalition, particularly the United States.
Frankly, it is a practical matter of fact that decisions for any action against Saddam Hussein, even the imposition of economic sanctions, would have been sterile without the major participation of the world's leading economic and military power. Let us all be realistic and acknowledge that we are fortunate to have the United States committed so completely to this mission for peace as otherwise it is doubtful that Saddam Hussein would be stopped at all.
Therefore, nothing could be more natural and responsible than to join those allies under the mantle of the United Nations. In fact we are told that Canadian leadership did as much to build that alliance as to follow and support it. It would be the height or irony, of irresponsibility, and perhaps even of cowardice for Canada to renege or back away from its commitments to this alliance in any way. Most certainly, it would be humiliating for us to do so, particularly for petty reasons or false
January 17, 1991

pride about who will be in tactical command of operations at any given stage or any given time.
It is clearly a coalition and a partnership of autonomous nations which have committed themselves to a common and united cause. In my view, it is the best ever manifestation of the ultimate vision of the United Nations which was founded so long ago, one which has been so badly frustrated and fragmented by cold war circumstances so as to have never been truly operable until now.
The involvement in which we find ourselves is absolutely consistent with our historic traditions and our world reputation.
In fact, the coalition against Saddam Hussein would be severely weakened with Canada's full participation, diplomatically, economically, and even militarily. That is among the strongest of reasons for my support of the resolution last November and for my continued support of Canada's position today.
So, Madam Speaker, with no sense of enthusiasm or light heart at all, but in fact with a great sense of discouragement and apprehension, I remain convinced that our complete commitment to the United Nations and our allies in it is the right course for Canada at this time in our history.
We are pursuing a course for world peace and for world order which is absolutely fundamental to the best interests of our own country and should be to all other nations. It is a mission that cannot be characterized as beyond our values or our vision because in the world we know today even the Middle East becomes a close neighbour. We cannot isolate ourselves from reality, nor can we retreat from responsibility.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague indicated that he was supportive of military action, and I think I am quoting him correctly, "under the mantle of the United Nations".
I am wondering if he, like myself, is supportive of the United Nations and so committed to it that he would be prepared to recommend to his government that this
Government Orders
multinational force be under the command and direction of the United Nations.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Madam Speaker, as I said in my remarks, I would not criticize or condemn the coalition in the manner in which it is campaigning for peace in the Middle East on the basis of petty reasons about who is in command of tactical operations.
I believe that this is a much more realistic approach to the operations than perhaps would have been possible or operable under the flag of the United Nations. I have heard words to the effect that the United Nations force was not so effective or well managed in the Korean War, for example.
What is unique here is that each nation has been able to retain its autonomy while collaborating within what we are told is a concept of national command and designated or delegated a technical operation.
I would think that this is a very reasonable and appropriate approach to the hostilities in the Middle East at this time.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to say that this motion reinforces the force mandate of the United Nations and sets another precedent for the use of force. Does the member believe that the United Nations should be strengthened with a new force mandate and new precedent of this nature?
If you go to history, China invaded Vietnam. Vietnam invaded Cambodia. The United States invaded Panama. Israel and Syria invaded Lebanon. The Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland. If today the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia or Poland, or China invaded Vietnam, would the United Nations then be justified in using force? Does the hon. member believe that the United Nations would go against China or the Soviet Union with a force mandate and a war to remove them from those countries? Is that where we are headed with world government?


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Madam Speaker, I believe that the resolutions which were taken in advance of the actions in the Middle East by the United Nations did establish the mandate for force. It appears to me that the unprecedented alliance which has been created and the successful action which I contemplate-although with considerable apprehension as do all members from present operations-will establish for the first time

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
perhaps the reality that the United Nations has the power of force to support its diplomatic mandate, and having the power of force and having demonstrated the will and capability to use it, may obviate the need ever to use it again.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, I must say that, contrary to common practice, it would be difficult for a member to stand up today and state that he or she has the pleasure of taking part in this debate, for this is a very serious matter we are debating, a matter with serious consequences for our country, for our young people and perhaps also for the universe.
The Prime Minister recalled the House of Commons to discuss the situation in the Persian Gulf, but he did so at the last moment, Madam Speaker. He waited until last Thursday night, merely four days before the January 15 cut off date, to recall tire House for consultations on the actions Canada should take against Iraq, following the invasion of Kuwait on August 2.
What is worse, Madam Speaker, is the fact that the government put a motion proposing something entirely different from the real reason we are here today. Instead of asking us whether or not Canada should take part in this war, the Prime Minister and his government decided to ask us, by way of a motion, if we supported the United Nations.

Had we been asked the appropriate question, which is of course should Canada go or not go to war, I would have nevertheless voted against it. But I think I had a right and my constituents had a right to have that fundamental question posed and to have all of us speak on the question that should have been before Parliament.
When I said that we commenced this debate at the eleventh hour, that is not just an expression, for as we were debating the motion in question in this House war did break out. Last evening I had temporarily left the House of Commons to have dinner in the Parliamentary Restaurant when my colleague from Mount Royal suddenly entered the restaurant to break the news to us who were there that the war had begun. While I was grateful
for the initiative of my colleague who chose to come and inform us of the news, I must tell you, Madam Speaker, that it is not exactly news that I was looking forward to.
None of what we say today should be interpreted in any way as to suggest that we do not find anything wrong with the invasion by Iraq of Kuwait. I think that all of us in this House deplore and condemn the action of Saddam Hussein who invaded the oil rich and very tiny nation of Kuwait last August 2. Neither should we pretend that we are here to defend that great bastion of democracy, Kuwait. That is not so either. What we are discussing is that a sovereign country was invaded by another.
It was a short invasion in terms of time and a bloody one. Kuwait, with a population of approximately a million people, was certainly no match for Iraq, which, according to the London based International Institute for Strategic Studies, has the fourth largest army on the face of the earth of some one million people. The invasion itself only lasted some three hours, and a few days later the government capitulated. We have all heard of the atrocities. We have seen reports on television of babies being killed in hospitals, of other similar incidents, and of the country of Kuwait being devastated by the Iraqis after the invasion.
The point I am making is that none of us in this House, whether we agree or disagree on the military action, differs in terms of our condemnation of the action of Kuwait.

Madam Speaker, the question is not whether we support the United Nations, as the motion before the House implies. Of course we support the UN, but we are under no obligation to support all its resolutions. In fact, the Canadian government has not always done so. After all, we are a sovereign state, and we are free to make our own choices.
The question is not whether we are against Saddam Hussein, his government, and the brutal invasion of Kuwait. Of course we are. We have said so, and we will continue to say so, loud and clear. The question is not whether we support our Armed Forces who are now in the Persian Gulf. As was said clearly by the Leader of the Opposition last night, of course the Liberal Party supports the military forces in Kuwait at this time.
January 17, 1991

Madam Speaker, the question, although it may now have become somewhat academic, was whether together with the United States and other countries, we were in favour of declaring war against Iraq. That raised and still raises objections from Liberal members. However, Madam Speaker, it is more or less water under the bridge, since we have already passed that stage.

Regrettably, in my opinion, there has now been a military aggression. War has been initiated, and I deplore that. Regrettably again, our country has decided to participate in that war. But, now that that is done, I think it is incumbent upon all of us to support the forces that we have sent over there, even though I am not one of those who thought that it was a good idea to send our forces into active combat to start with. That is done and we cannot, as far as I know, undeclare war, regrettably.
What we must do, then, is support our forces. I think we must pray that our forces will be spared casualties, that this situation will not last any longer than it has to, and that our troops will be able to come home as soon as possible.
I want to return to this whole business of sanctions and why my colleagues and I thought that was the proper avenue to follow, even though of course, as I say, events have overtaken them. Canadians still have a right to know what it is that we thought was the appropriate course for our nation. We believe that diplomatic channels could have continued their work. We also believe that the trade embargo could have continued.
In response to a question by the member for Winnipeg South Centre, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the House of Commons yesterday, I believe it was, that there was no proof the trade sanctions had their desired effect. The minister was asking the opposition to demonstrate proof of that sort. The question was backward. The Secretary of State for External Affairs should be giving us proof and should have given us proof prior to the military action being launched that the trade sanctions had not worked. That proof was never provided to members of this House or to Canadians generally.
William Webster of the United States Central Intelligence Agency, not one of those folks known to be a dove, said less than two months ago before the U.S. Congress that 90 per cent of Iraq's imports and 97 per cent of its
Government Orders
exports had been stopped. Has that changed since then? If it did, by what measure did it change? What is the proof that it has changed? Why was that proof not given to me and to our colleagues in the House of Commons? Why was that not shown to us prior to the military decision being taken? I do not know the answer to that questions.
James Schlesinger, former secretary of defense of the United States, said that we needed approximately a year for the trade sanctions to work and to be able to identify how they had worked. Why is it, then, that all of that advice, again not from people who are known to be peace activists, was not followed?
I want to remind the House of a speech made in the United States Senate on January 10, 1991, in which Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts said the following:
I urge the Senate to vote for peace, not war. Now is not the time for war. I reject the argument that says that Congress must support the President, right or wrong. We have our own responsibility to do what it is right, and I believe that war today is wrong.
Similarly I say to our colleagues in Parliament who are supporters of the government that they had the same duty; that the argument for members across the way to support the Prime Minister, right or wrong, is itself wrong; that we have the responsibility as well to do what is right. I wish that they would have agreed with me that the declaration of war itself was wrong.
In the few moments I have left, I just want to indicate that the Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and a group in the United States calling itself the U.S. Centre for Defence Information have warned that the casualties from this war could be indeed quite severe. They talk of casualties including deaths of some 200,000 people and indicate that 80 per cent of them could be civilians.

Madam Speaker, I would like to say, in the few minutes I have left, that I hope the statistics are all wrong, not because parliamentarians enjoy being proved wrong but because I hope those lives will be spared. I also hope, and this notwithstanding my objections to this declaration of war, that now that war has been declared, our military forces will be spared and that they will all come back from the Persian Gulf, without exception. It

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
may be wishful thinking, but I can still hope and pray it will happen, Madam Speaker.
I also hope the war will be very short, that Saddam Hussein will withdraw from Kuwait, and that subsequently, the nations of this world will be able to ensure there is stability in the Persian Gulf. We can only hope that never in our lives, not in yours or mine, nor in our childrens lives, we will ever face a similar crisis.
As the father of two teenagers, Madam Speaker, I must tell you that when war did break out last night- and still today, so long as it is there-it really brings the message home. When one has a son of 19, one thinks even in times of peace about the possibility of war. I am sure we all think of that in any case, but we think of it with a particular focus in mind. It brings just one additional concern to all of us. It does to me as a father.
In closing, let us hope that the hostilities will be very brief, that Saddam Hussein will withdraw from Kuwait and that we will restore long-term peace and stability in the Persian Gulf area.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Deputy 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 Bill S-19, an act to amend the Penitentiary Act, to reinstate the statutory visitation privileges of members of Parliament, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

I also have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-94, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1991.
A message has also been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Multicultur-alism and Citizenship and to amend certain acts in
relation thereto, without amendment, and of the comments appearing in the 19th report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, dated January 16, 1991.
A message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-54, an act to amend the Criminal Code (joinder accounts), without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

["Madam Speaker, at this stage, we have to conclude that the government has dissipated Canada's reputation as a peacemaker in the world. That is a very sad conclusion.\nIt seems to us, now we are in this unwanted war, that our military efforts should be on the side of providing health, hospital and field medical services. Our role should be one that will increase and not demolish our credibility once the hostilities are over. This is a war. The solution of the problem in Kuwait is not by means of war and it is not a solution that a majority of Canadians support.\nCanadians would want to see Canada involved in diplomatic efforts in order to bring an end to this unwanted and terrible situation which is deteriorating by the day."]
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that another communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
January 17, 1991
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Claire BHeureux-Dube, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 17th day of January, 1991, at 5:05 p.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:


Madam Deputy 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-74, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.
Bill C-68, an act to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act and the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and to make provision for the application of certain orders.

Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and to amend certain acts in relation thereto.
Bill C-54, an act to amend the Criminal Code (joinder of counts).
Bill C-94, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1991.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead), (p. 16984) and of the motion of Mrs. Collins (p. 17150).
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. member who just spoke and the House some feeling from my own riding on the west coast of Canada. I have a petition and some comments that were submitted by the Como Lake High School in Coquitlam, British Columbia, wherein the students expressed deep concern over the position Canada has taken with respect to the crisis in the Middle East. They are opposed to war. They were encouraging their member of Parliament, in the strongest possible terms, to speak on their behalf, to use dialogue and other sanctions to bring a peaceful end to this crisis. I received a similar message in a petition presented to the Port Moody High School Student's Council through Lisa Buckley and Chilwin Cheng. They presented to me a petition with 1,000 signatures, so I have 1,266 signatures from the students at Port Moody Senior High School and Como Lake High School.
I bring this to the attention of the hon. member because this was really done before the outbreak of hostilities. I think the hon. member and other members would agree with me and with these students that there is a deep concern among young people in Canada against war. They are right; they are against war.
I will just ask the member to comment on this matter. I feel that after the shooting is finished in the Middle East-and hopefully that will be soon-the real challenge for the world will be to make peace. We will need a Middle East peace conference to build confidence,
Government Orders
security building mechanisms, co-operation, and a feeling of security among all the countries so that this will never happen again.
I am pleased to present those views on behalf of myself and the young people in those high schools. I would ask the hon. member and other members to comment about that position.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. Actually he reminded me of something I should have raised myself, that is the fact that yesterday, young people from VEcole secondaire de Plantagenet in my constituency came to my office with a four-foot by eight-foot plywood postcard. Members whose offices are in the West Block might have walked by my office and have seen the postcard advocating peace addressed to the Prime Minister. I see our colleague from Simcoe across the way. Her office is just across from mine. She has obviously seen the postcard. It is very impressive, with all the work that was done by those young people.
I want to tell my colleague who just raised that question and brought the petition to the attention of the House that it is no coincidence young people in large numbers signed it. Wars are not fought by people my age or the age of most members of this House, excluding yourself of course, Madam Speaker, because you are far younger than most of us, wars are fought by young people. It is not a coincidence that they have a particular concern about war. Earlier I alluded to that in my remarks as a father of two teenagers and to the totally broader dimension that it brings. Generals themselves are not largely on the battlefields; it is the soldiers who are on the battlefields, the able seamen and other people who are not officers and who are also the younger ones.
Finally, I would like to comment on the last item that our colleague brought to our attention, the whole issue of restoring peace to the general area afterward. This morning I watched the news on television. Dr. Henry Kissinger, a well-known personality in the area of foreign affairs, brought to the attention of everyone listening the fact that when all this is over things must be reconstructed in a way that will achieve long-term peace in the area.
If Iraq is totally devastated in such a way that nothing can be reconstructed, if devastation can be that severe,

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
countries such as Iran and others in the area are potentially attracted toward invading that country. If that were to happen, of course the same process might happen all over again. How unfortunate that would be.
Those who are charged with fighting the war in Iraq should remember that as part of their military strategy, because the devastation will result from that. I suppose that is part of war, regrettably. They should remember that if the devastation is to such an extent that virtually nothing can be salvaged, it might encourage less stability in the area rather than more.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I wonder what the member's feeling is on a related subject.
I just received a call from Canadian Press. The parliamentary secretary, if he still holds that position, might also be interested in this. A ban was placed as of an hour ago on all Canadian reporters in the area with respect to speaking to any soldiers, airmen or navy personnel aboard the ships or in Qatar. I wonder what his reaction is to this ban with respect to freedom of the press.
I have also received another call with respect to coverage of French language television. The reporters are there, but the camera crews are not there on the French CBC side, Radio-Canada.

So there is some concern about the potential of camera crews on the French side and the freedom of speech of reporters. Would you care to comment?


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, the great concern-and I am sure it is a concern that will be shared across the way as well-is that there is a tendency in war to embellish the result that one wants, shall I dare use the word, to propagate. The obvious concern is that people could then put what is known as the spin that they like on the news. In other words, they could orchestrate the news in such a way as to give the appearance that they want, rather than informing the people about what is actually happening.
There is another concern that I have. It is in relation to the United States way of doing things. I do not criticize
the United States in at regard. It has its own way of doing things; it is just not my way. The United States military generally operates in that kind of fashion, which is the one my colleague from Mount Royal has just described. I am concerned about the following two possible scenarios and I hope that someone on the government side is able to react to them. I am wondering if the United States military is now controlling Canadian access to information in regard to this war or, alternatively, have we as a country adopted its way of controlling access to information? Which is it?
I am reminded by my hon. colleague from Mount Royal that it has been said many times that the first casualty of war is truth. No doubt if there is that kind of control on the media, that casualty will definitely be first again.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour and Minister of State (Transport)):: Madam Speaker, as many know, I have been anxious to return to the House of Commons to receive the most up-to-date information, to discuss, and to speak on the involvement of Canada and Canadians in the gulf conflict.
The war started before I was able to speak today, but I have listened to the most up-to-date information and certainly I have listened to a lot of discussion that has taken place in the last few days.
I am still pleased to be able to speak publicly and have the opportunity to do so about national interests, international law and security, and political and economic stability, as well as the fate of our international order.
For my part this is a very difficult, momentous and personally concerning consideration. Supporting the government motion is a vote of reaffirmation of Canada's vote in favour of 12 United Nations resolutions, ending with Resolution 678 that set the deadline of January 15 to use all necessary means to uphold all the prior UN resolutions.
Essentially the issue that is before us is what are we doing about Saddam Hussein and his troops, and what are we doing, how are we doing and how are we feeling about getting him out of Kuwait.
January 17, 1991

I believe that no one in the House disagrees with the need to deal with Saddam Hussein and his Armed Forces. Rather, it seems what has divided us has been the best means of how we go about doing it.
I do not think the choice is simply between war and peace. I cannot believe that any of us honestly opt for war if we did not have to end aggression. We do not want it, but he has brought it upon a small country next door.
What has really been at issue is the best viable means to go about having Saddam Hussein move out of Kuwait. I am fully in support of peace. I do not relish the thought of warfare that is going on or the loss of any human life. I am like the Prime Minister of Canada in that we believe that all diplomatic means must have been looked at and examined before January 15 and up to to January 16, the day the war started.
In my riding of Sarnia-Lambton, one does not have to go far to find support for this line of thought. On Monday of this week, about 100 local residents demonstrated in front of my constituency office calling for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
Throughout last week, I have also met with a number of other constituents, with ministers of congregations, and received a number of telephone calls, and facsimile messages, all echoing the-


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the hon. member on this point of order, but there was an announcement that 350,000 Iraqis have been killed so far.
I wonder if the government might come forward to confirm that number of casualties for us and that those casualties are still accumulating. I think the House needs to know that information.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not think this is really a point of order, but I take it that what the hon. member is saying, and I am sure that should it become necessary, the House will be kept informed.
The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton.


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, on the other side of the coin, a number of my constituents has also expressed support for compliance with UN resolution 678 to restore international peace and order in the gulf area.
Government Orders
On an issue of this magnitude and complexity, none of us can be said to have all the information or all the answers. As such we must respect the views and the emotions of all sides of this issue.
As parliamentarians we have to make decisions on the basis of the information available to us from all sources. We listen to our constituents, experts and other Canadians; analyse the information provided to us by the government; read the newspapers; and watch all sorts of coverage and information we get our hands on.
Sometimes, coupled with gut feelings, experience and instinct, we put things on the balance sheet and assess the pros and cons. In looking at this issue in this debate, we must begin by understanding why Canada is involved. Historically Canadians have been happy to have their government support NATO as a participant and as a leader. Why? Because of our size and our lack of military might. International order is of utmost importance to us.
The essence of our position is to support the United Nations in its resolutions. We are involved in defence of our own interests in the United Nations and in the invasion of any small member state. We are not involved in a unilateral initiative, but in a collective initiative involving more than 28 countries.
In particular, Canada is concerned about the Iraqi aggression as an affront to international law and a critical challenge to new international order of which Canada is such an advocate.
First, we had to consider economic sanctions and continued diplomacy. Assuredly, this was everyone's first and preferred choice. No one wanted to use force and everyone fears the madness and the cost of going to war.
Second, over the past months we have witnessed the systematic dismemberment of Kuwait. The December report by Amnesty International has already outlined the horrors and human rights atrocities experienced by the people of Kuwait: the reports of brutalization, rape, torture, forcible ejection, and so on.
What would be left to liberate had we waited too long?
Third, were the sanctions effective? Certainly, international trade has slowed. Yet, who is being most affected? Even Maude Barlow who had visited Iraq said on TV that only the poor were being affected. Saddam Hussein

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
has stated openly that he would not deprive the armed forces and the government of what is required.
Equally important, one must also ask the questions: What would have been the difference some six, twelve or eighteen months from now? Would Saddam, by having more time, have developed new capabilities? Would he have fortified his defences? As a result, would the casualties have increased as we waited? Who would he attempt to annex next?
In the end, my decision to support the motion before us has been primarily shaped by eight principle considerations.
First, the international order is Canada's objective through our United Nations participation. The prohibition against aggression which is a fundamental principle of the UN charter can never be really effective unless its members are willing to deliver on their own solemn commitments to collective security.
Second, when asked whether it should give support or walk away, it would be extraordinary if Canada was not participating in a UN action under the charter.
Third, there has been no change in Canada's approach to foreign policy. There is no contradiction between its present role and the peacekeeping role which it has undertaken in the past. Both support international efforts to maintain order and peace through the United Nations system.
Fourth, I am confident that I have been provided straight, accurate and in-depth information that substantiates that international order is being challenged.
In this respect, through external affairs, intelligence is telling us that the sanctions were not working; that the poor are being hurt; that the defences were being built up; and that it was certainly the time for us to enact a time date and cariy on.
Any significant deal on the terms of Saddam Hussein-and I say any deal-could have been an extremely bad example and weakened the United Nations for years to come.
Seventh, human nature dictates the need for a deadline. In its absence, would we have had all this shuttle diplomacy that we had in the last two weeks? I doubt that very much.
Eighth, there are strong signals from our Armed Forces of their readiness in terms of training and their mental state-of-mind and, if need be, they are confident that they can carry out the task for which they are ready.
On the basis of these considerations and after looking at all available information, it is with a great deal of concern and consternation, and certainly deep thought, that I support the motion presented that supports the 12 United Nations resolutions.
This is a most difficult and certainly an emotional decision for many members of Parliament on all sides of the House. But failure to vote for this motion would repudiate Canada's support for the major resolutions and for international order that is so important.
So, I pray that this war will end quickly. My heart is with our Armed Forces who are defending freedom and peace in the gulf, as well for their families and relatives at home in my riding and in many places across the country. I wish the Armed Forces a speedy and safe return from the conflict that is taking place.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I ask the hon. member one question about his own personal approach and, I hope, the approach of every member of Parliament.
If the primary objective to destroy all Iraqi military infrastructures has largely been achieved, that the capacity to fight the size of force that has been accumulated against them has been removed, and that the cost of that was a third of a million Iraqis, if that bombardment continues from this day onward it is butchery. It is butchery of the poor, of the people of a Third World country. It is the most disgusting and despicable thing that could be imagined.
Would the hon. member join with us in the House in asking the Prime Minister to ask the President of the United States to stop the bombardment. A madman is being asked to take the responsibility for a nation and stop this battle, but that madman is probably incapable of
January 17, 1991

assessing and responding correctly to what is happening around him. It is the Iraqi population, half of which is under 14 years old, that is paying an enormous and unnecessary price.
Would the hon. member agree that if the casualties are that great and that in three days we see a million casualties and that that infrastructure is gone, that our Prime Minister should contact George Bush and say: "Stop, pause. Give the population a chance to take this into their hands and end the insanity"?


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, certainly I cannot answer according to the figures he presented. I do not know if that is the number of lost lives.
I do know, however, that my constituents and the government feel very strongly about Iraq leaving Kuwait. Certainly, I understand that the offensive action taking place was initially surgical; to remove the ability of Iraq to continue in warfare.
The United Nations has asked Hussein to leave Kuwait. It is in his hands. I understand he is a madman. I have that feeling from the news I heard a while ago where it was announced that they were going back to Baghdad. Probably now they are attempting to work on the people to try to overthrow this madman. It certainly appears to be that that kind of thing might be what they are attempting to do. Hopefully, the people of the country will take a hold of this situation.
It is certainly not the intention of myself or of anybody in the House to see the loss of life of even one person, but we know that in armed combat that is going to happen. I just hope and pray, as he and everyone here does, that either the President of Iraq or those who can take hold of this guy, hopefully from within, have him see his way and quickly move the troops out of Kuwait.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is only a minute left so it will have to be very quick.


Marcel Prud'homme: I listened attentively to my hon. friend. We talk a lot about the new international order, and I agree. Would it not be the time now to start sending international signals as to the next step while the war is still on, a war with which I disagree of course? It may have been different, last week, before war broke out. But now that war has broken out, it is not more linked anymore. We should say, internationally, and Canada should be one of the first to start saying: what is the next step?
Government Orders
I know Sarnia-Lambton and I know there are a lot of leaders of multicultural groups there who strongly believe that the time has come to start, not linking, I agree, because it unpopular but to start talking about an international peace conference. It will even talk about the respect for the multitude of the United Nations Security Council on Cyprus and start talking to Turkey saying: "The time has come for you to respect the multitude of resolutions and to get out of north Cyprus" which it has been occupying against every resolution. Would the member care to comment for 30 seconds. I am sure we can give him a few seconds.


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, I hear what my hon. colleague is saying and I know of his great interest in that particular part of the world. Certainly, I would hope that the international order, that what has happened here with the United Nations, with the resolve, with the coalition, and with the allies coming together, will make some very strong signals that resolutions that were put in place will be picked up and carried on with in other places and resolved. As he said, he is not talking linkage and I am not talking linkage, but let us hope that this initiative will then show the way and show an example, being brought to a final resolve in the right kind of way where international order has been restored, and so it will show an example. I hear what he is saying and would agree.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, I spoke in this House on November 29 on the original UN resolution to use force, if necessary, to drive Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. We are basically, for the people at home, debating the same resolution. If I may, I will read it, Madam Speaker. It reads:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
That is the issue that we are debating. We are debating a means of getting an individual out of a country that he has simply marched into and has taken over by sheer force, nothing more and nothing less.
On the evening of November 29, when I was speaking on the resolution, I pointed out that if there was a common theme to all that was said in the House that evening, it was the fact that we sought peace, all of us. We all have differing views on particular issues and circumstances but the common theme was simply that we wanted a peaceful resolution to the crisis in the gulf. Obviously, that did not come about. We have used every means at our disposal, all countries of the world have. The United Nations has just worked undyingly to solve

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
this thing peacefully, as has our Prime Minister and as has our Secretary of State for External Affairs, but to no avail.
That evening I got into the personal side of conflict, the personal side of war and what it is like for individual members of Parliament. That evening I spoke of my son's involvement in the gulf, not knowing at that particular time whether or not war would come about but certainly hoping and praying that it would not. But as I speak, he is positioned about 80 miles from the Kuwait border in Saudi Arabia. So the issue becomes very much personalized for me as a member of Parliament. I guess, when I speak, I am speaking not only as a politician, a member of Parliament, but also as a father.
I think that in a sense is what every member of Parliament in this place has gone through. Not all of us have a son or a daughter in the gulf, but all of us have friends and neighbours and associates that do have sons and daughters, men and women, in the gulf. Someone pointed out to me that every soldier is someone's son or someone's daughter. That is certainly true. Those human emotions have certainly come through here in the last couple of days.
I think every member of Parliament has been on an emotional roller coaster, not knowing even at the 11th hour, the 12th hour, whether or not it was going to come to this, come to war, but it has.
Just to review history a little bit, if we take a look at what happened about a year ago in Europe and what was happening around the world, it appeared that peace was at hand in a sense, if we can use that term, that the walls in Europe were coming down; that some of the old traditional barriers that have troubled us for years were tumbling. It looked as if there was going to be a new world order. The cold war in a sense evaporated and we were into a new time of peace.
But on August 2, that vanished. On August 2, Saddam Hussein moved into his neighbouring country and simply took it over in the most brutal fashion known to mankind. He spared no one. Women and children, young and old, they all perished at the hands of this international madman.
Why did he do it? It was simply thievery carried out at the grandest level. One anthropologist told me when I was going to university that that is usually what brings about war, theft at the grandest scale, one country attempting to take over another country, in fact stealing that country. He did not do it for any ideological reason. He did it simply to take it because in the taking of Kuwait he would be in possession of about 25 per cent of the world's known oil reserves and using that economic tool to inflict more pain on other nations as time went on and to take over other neighbouring Arab states at his own free will.
That is what the western world faced on August 2: How do we drive this individual out of this country?
We have used all peaceful means to do that, even at the 12th hour. This individual simply had to pick up the telephone and say that he was willing to negotiate, that he was willing to go back to his home country, leave these people alone and restore international order.
He simply did not do that. He had no intention of doing it. It is the same individual, the same madman, who put his own people through eight and a half years of war with his neighbouring country of Iran, at a cost of approximately one million people.
And then what does he do? He attempts to neutralize the country that he attacked and some of his neighbours who he fought for eight and a half years only to keep them neutral in this conflict that he is in now to do so, and gave up every single piece of territory that he gained in that war.
That is what we are dealing with. We are simply dealing with a madman.
Yesterday in the House of Commons, our former Prime Minister, John Turner spoke very eloquently to attempt to explain to the Canadian people the situation in the gulf in relation to the United Nations. He was very convincing. In his words, it is simply a war that has been sanctioned by the United Nations to drive out a common enemy.
To quote Mr. Turner yesterday: "No, this is not an American adventure. It is a United Nations action in collective security, one of the greatest historic developments of our time." It is one of the few times in modern history when virtually all the countries of the world have come together against a common enemy.
January 17, 1991

It is unprecedented in history that that would happen. Unprecedented. It is very important that Canada support the world view. We are living in a world that somehow seems to be filled with individuals like Saddam Hussein in various parts of the world from time to time. Madmen.
We have supported the United Nations over the years, and it is very important that we continue to do the same thing in this House.
A vote will take place on this, Madam Speaker, and you might say that it is academic, but it really is not. I think we need to have an overwhelming show of support for our position in the United Nations.
Again, as the former Prime Minister mentioned last evening, we are citizens of the world, and we have a collective responsibility to act as citizens of the world against an aggressor nation. That is simply what Saddam Hussein is: an aggressor who has picked up on his power and ability to inflict torture on others.
If I may, I would like time to finish. Saddam Hussein has spent a lifetime inflicting torture on others. Other members opposite mentioned the cost of the war that we are presently going through. What is the cost of waiting? How many lives have been lost in Kuwait in the last six weeks? We will never put a number on that. Never.
The suggestion is that it is in the hundreds of thousands. We will never know. That is the type of individual that we are dealing with. There has not been peace since August 2, so it is not a question of war and peace.
The question of war began on August 2 when he entered a neutral country and took advantage of it, decimated it-men, women and children. It is up to us to take action against Saddam Hussein. We have done it, and we are very proud of our position.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, at the outset, the first question that has to be asked of the hon. member who just spoke is how many lives have been lost in just the last 12 hours? Over 100,000 at least. Maybe as many as 350,000 to some counts.
The hon. member who spoke before him spoke of sanctions. The hon. parliamentary secretary quoted
Government Orders
Maude Barlow as saying that sanctions only affect the poor. But we have to discuss this in an honest fashion. How many sanctions have been recorded? How many do we know of? How many examples are there? How many missing pieces are there to that sanctions puzzle?
The Centre for Strategic Studies in the United Kingdom told us and then showed us on network television the shortages of metal for bullets and shells, shortages of petroleum, refined petroleum, gasoline, cars and trucks in the line-ups, people waiting hours for their gasoline.
We are discussing a motion:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
That argument has gone on in this House. We put forward an amendment. We lost the amendment.
Now we have our men and women in the Armed Forces at war. These men and women have much pride in the duty they have to perform in the gulf. I know somewhat of the pride they feel. I grew up through the cadet movement. I was a second lieutenant in the Armed Forces for a period of time. So I understand what it is to be proud of that uniform.
My question for the hon. member who just spoke is this. We know what the situation is today. We know how many lives are being lost and will be lost. The question is, what are we going to do from this point on? Is the hon. member aware of any peace initiatives being carried out today? Is the hon. member aware? He certainly has the chance to tap one of the 13 members of the war cabinet on the shoulder and say, "What are we doing now?". I would welcome some information from the hon. member on what he is doing, not only personally, but what he is aware his party is doing to initiate these important peace initiatives that must begin now.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question was quite lengthy. It goes into the question of waiting, as originating in the hon. member's statement.
One thing that I wanted to point out during my speech is a document entitled "The Price of Waiting. Amnesty International. Iraq Occupied Kuwait on August 2". It is a list of atrocities that were perpetrated on the people of Kuwait, as well as his own people.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
This document is available from Amnesty International. I would suggest to the Canadian people who are watching that they send for it. It pretty well documents the type of individual that the world is up against.
That is the price of waiting. Hundreds of thousands have died, sometimes on a daily basis, waiting for this guy to move out. But, Madam Speaker, do you know how peace can be achieved this very night in the Middle East? No bombing or suffering. Saddam Hussein can pick up the telephone and just simply say, "I withdraw from that little country of Kuwait and I will go back into the hills of Iraq". That is all he has to do.
We know what the UN has gone through and what Canada has gone through to preserve the peace over the years. The question is: Can we deal with a madman? We cannot on the terms that he wants to deal. It is simple as that. If he wants to sue for peace this evening, peace will come about. The United Nations and the rest of the world are bent on delivering peaceful decades to come in the Middle East. We will work to achieve that. Canada will work alongside the United Nations to achieve that, as we are this very evening.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, like many of us in this House of Commons, I had prepared notes in the days-it seems days ago-it is only two days ago that we came back to Ottawa to debate the motion that the government put forward. I prepared notes on why it was wrong to go to war and why it would be such a mistake. The fact is that now this country, my country, Canada, is at war.
I find those words very difficult to say. It is not something that I ever dreamt in my lifetime that I would ever, ever say: Canada is at war. My colleagues tell me that the news tonight starts with Peter Mansbridge showing a missile launching. Today in 1991, what have we learned. We have learned nothing. We are at war again when we said war was obsolete.
I have listened very carefully over the last two days to the speeches that have been made by the Prime Minister, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I have read them again. I do not doubt their conviction. I cannot doubt their own conviction. Surely no one in my country could take us to this position if they did not firmly believe what they were saying. What they are really saying-and
when I read through the speeches again-is that we must have war to have peace. It makes no sense.
Did we give the alternatives the time they needed? I do not believe we did. Did we give every diplomatic option a chance? I do not believe so. Did we give the sanctions enough time? No. We knew that it took about 18 months for the sanctions to work in Namibia. We only gave sanctions five and a half months. There was evidence, contrary to what the government has said, that the sanctions were working. Until August, Iraq derived 98 per cent of its export revenue from the sale of oil. But under these sanctions the exports have dropped from 2,800,000 barrels of oil per day to 60,000. That represented a foreign exchange loss of $2 billion a month to Iraq. We must see that they were losing by the sanctions. Could we not have made sanctions more effective if that was indeed a problem.
Another thing that I have been struck with during this debate is the use of language. Maybe that is something that women notice more than men, I do not know. I have been struck by the language that the government has used and even the language that various members of the opposition parties have used.
One of the phrases that has really grated on me and I have found so hard to understand is this term "a surgical strike". It sounds like a medical term. What is a surgical strike? What is it really? It is launching missiles on people. It is killing people. Why don't we talk about what we are really doing in this place. Why don't we speak about what it is we are really taking part in today. I have heard people talk about Canadian assets in the Middle East, that is Canadian assets going to Kuwait and going to liberate-that is the other term-Kuwait. What are these assets? These assets are our children, our own young people who are being sent to war, being sent to the desert.
I listened to the member for Fraser Valley West and I heard him say that he was not prepared to send his son to die in the desert sands and that unless each one of us was prepared to send our sons and our daughters to take part in this war, that we had no business to vote on this. I agree with him.
I have three sons who are at the age of the people that we are sending there, the people who are going to war in the gulf. I would do everything in my power to prevent my children from fighting in this war, everything. So how can I support the war? How can I say that someone else's sons and someone else's daughters should go and fight
January 17, 1991

this battle? I cannot do that. I do not want anybody's children to die in this war, not just my own. I do not want anyone there fighting for something so bizarre when we could have used diplomatic measures and sanctions, I believe, to a greater effect and for a longer time.
We have heard also the term the new world order, that we have entered into a new world order. What is this new world order? It seems to me that war is a very old world order. It seems to me that wars fought particularly in this region of our planet have been going on for a long, long, long time and war has nothing to do with a new world order. War is a failure. War is a defeat. I think we must say we have suffered a great defeat for the whole global community by entering into this war.
Have we learned nothing in all of our history, in all of the world's history? Have we learned nothing from the wars that I have seen in my time, the Korean war, the Vietnam war. How many times have we heard in this House of Commons that the war that my father participated in for Canada, the Second World War, was the war to end all wars. Yet there have been countless wars in this world since the end of the Second World War, wars that we have not taken to the serious degree that we are now taking this one, nonetheless wars where people died.
What is it that we are going to do now? What is it that our government is going to do now? We are at war now, but what is the responsibility of the government, of the cabinet, of our Prime Minister, of our Secretary of State for External Affairs? I think that there are options now. I think that the war can be stopped, but I think that Canada must return to the role that Canada has played in past conflicts in the last number of years, where Canada has played the role of a peacemaker, where Canada has had a proud tradition of standing somewhat apart from the conflict but saying there must be nations which are there to build the bridges between nations.
We heard earlier that there are unconfirmed reports that the death toll in Iraq at this point is 350,000 people. If that is true, in the space of less than 24 hours, 350,000 lives gone, is that possible? My colleague tells me that is five times the number of deaths in Vietnam. Is that possible? We asked if there was confirmation coming
Government Orders
from the government. This is horror. We are living through a horror. The government has an obligation now that we are in the hostilities, now that the hostilities have begun. Our government must take that role that Canada and Canadians have been so proud of in the past, take that role for diplomatic actions, take that role as a world leader for peace, end this madness, end it now. There is nothing when we talk about support for our Armed Forces. What greater support could we give them than to end the hostilities and end the war before they are hurt or killed?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Dawn Black: I spoke about my own family and other members who have talked about their own children, but is it enough to think only of your own family? Is it enough for us to think now only of Canadians, Americans, and British?
We must think of our globe as our village. We have heard this said before, but the destruction that is going on now in the Middle East is going to have implications for a long, long time in our history. If we worried about the destabilization of the Middle East before-my God, even if the war ends tomorrow, what is going to happen in that area of the world? How are we ever going to build those bridges that I spoke of earlier?
I want to urge our Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the members of Parliament on both sides of the House to look toward the diplomatic measures, the peace-leading role for Canada, the role that we must find and that our government must find in order to end this horror in which we are in the midst. The war must be stopped. There are no alternatives than to work towards peace. It is the only sensible alternative and it is the one in which our government should have been taking a leadership role, in all of the ways that I mentioned. I can only urge the government to take that role now and take it quickly.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby on a very fine and moving speech.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
When my hon. colleague from British Columbia says that war is a defeat and that war is a failure, she is right. Can you imagine, Madam Speaker, a greater failure on the part of political leaders around the world when they say we have failed to resolve an issue. We have failed to remove that brute Saddam Hussein and now we must turn to the young men and women of the worlds to sacrifice their lives so that they can succeed where we failed? That is the message from the political leaders of the world. We have failed and now young people must spill their blood. I take that very hard.
It is not only we adults and parliamentarians who realize the horrors of war. Just the other day I got a batch of letters from a Sunday school class, grades four and five of Sturgeon Creek United Church in my riding. Do you want to hear what they say, Madam Speaker? These are young children. "I do not want a war because people die." "I do not want war because it kills people." "If it would stop hurting people by war, I would say I would be very happy."
We are dealing with a great issue. I think that we, as parliamentarians, particularly in the opposition-and I respect the decision of the government-have an opportunity and a responsibility to provide an alternative. The alternative to war, in my opinion, is to continue with sanctions.
Why does my hon. friend from British Columbia think they gave up on sanctions? There is ample evidence that they were working, if they were only given time.


Dawn Black: I would like to thank my colleague from Manitoba for his question and his comments.
As to why they gave up on sanctions, it was a mindset from the beginning to go to war. It is very clear now.
I want to read into the record comments that were made in the House of Commons on September 8, 1939. That was a very significant date in Canadian history. It is a comment made by the founder of the CCF, the predecessor of the NDP, Mr. Woodsworth. He said:
While we are urged to fight for freedom and democracy, it should be remembered that war is the very negation of both. The victor may win; but if he does, it is by adopting the self-same tactics which he condemns in his enemy.
I think those words are as relevant today as they were in September of 1939.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. Before I do, I would like to quote from a couple of articles which appeared a week or two ago in newspapers.
An article in The Globe and Mail of December 19 states: "-forms of torture and abuse, including beatings with canes, metal rods, whips, hoses and other implements, breaking arms, legs or ribs, extracting finger and toe-nails, cutting off tongues and ears, gouging out eyes, castration, and the rape of women and young men. I know definitely about a young Kuwaiti friend who was taken out of the family home at night. Then the family was taken out of the house and forced to stand there while brothers and cousins were shot."
One of the things that bothers me about the sanctimonious speeches we are hearing from that member and her party is the suggestion that there was no aggression and that by waiting there was no price.
How long was the hon. member prepared to wait? If she wanted to suggest that there should be no aggression, I would like her to respond to these reports because, while they may be to some degree unconfirmed, we know there was aggression going on. We know that Saddam Hussein, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated yesterday, was making further preparations for war. How long was the hon. member prepared to wait and see these things go on? Was she prepared to wait forever?


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I do not believe that my speech was sanctimonious at all and I take great offence at that comment.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Dawn Black: I spoke from my heart and I spoke to my beliefs. It was not sanctimonious.
I would ask the hon. member, if he speaks for the government, if 350,000 have been killed in the space of 24 hours, how long will this madness go on? We must find a solution to the madness of war.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker,
I would just like to make a comment on the hon.
January 17, 1991

member's speech. I would agree with her that sometimes, when we want to help those who have been hurt, we do the same.
I would like to mention what happened in the Second World War. At the end of the war the American Air Force bombarded Dresden and over half a million people were killed. The war was over and the Germans were no longer able to fight. What happened? Half a million people were killed in three days.
I think if we wanted to help the people in Kuwait, we should have continued with sanctions. Sanctions were working. There are all indications that it was working.
As I said yesterday, I had spoken to an American senator who just come out from a briefing with President Bush. The CIA had informed them that the gross national product of Iraq had diminished by 40 per cent. It means that sanctions were working. The war machine was slowing down. We should have waited. This was the way to go, and not to start bombardment of innocent people and children.
So, I do agree with the hon. member and I would like to congratulate her on her speech.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I say again, if I may: "The victim may win; but if he does, it is by adopting the self-same tactics which he condemns in his enemy."
What I have heard Mr. Hussein accused of most in the House is butchery. What we, with our allies, are engaged in in Iraq, is butchery.
I would ask the hon. member, this House and this nation: How much more butchery will we commit before we say: "No! The war must stop!"?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, too, for her speech. I really do think it was from the heart.
The hon. member was present in Question Period today and heard the Minister of National Defence say explicitly that he felt that it was better to fight under an American flag, rather than under the flag of the United Nations.
I am hearing from people in my constituency that they support what is going on because they felt that what is going on was under the auspices of the United Nations
Government Orders
and that the fighting was under the flag of the United Nations.
I think the House was shocked today when we heard the Minister of National Defence say that he felt it was better to be fighting under the flag of the United States. Does the hon. member agree with that?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
I would like to comment on the comment that was made about Dresden. Is this what we are going through again? Are we going through this madness and overkill again when we are being told by the media and by the Pentagon that the whole infrastructure of Iraq-the war machine in Iraq-is gone and destroyed? Is this what we are going through again? Is this genocide that we are actually seeing?
In answer to the question about the war and the flag, we must stop the war. We must stop the war.


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, I am veiy pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate and to support fully and unequivocally the motion before the House. I offer this support for three reasons primarily.
First, I believe that international peace and security are in the best interests, not only of the world, but of Canada.
Second, I believe in the sanctity of the rule of law as a principle for relationships among the nations of the world, as well as within nations.
Third, I believe that the United Nations is the best vehicle, indeed the only vehicle, for the attainment of international peace and security and the rule of law among nations. Without an effective United Nations and without the maintenance of the rule of law and international peace and security, who knows what kind of chaos the world would degenerate to? The will of the mightiest would prevail. For small countries such as Canada, this could be indeed very perilous. Who knows what such a circumstance would yield for us?
Canadians enjoy a marvellous quality of life. We are an affluent country with abundant resources. In a chaotic world, who would know what the future would be like ahead for us?

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
It is important to understand and important to remember that this debate is first and foremost about whether or not Canada is going to stand with the United Nations as it has for 45 years. It is important to understand the powers and the role of the United Nations that were attributed to it by its founders in 1945. The predecessor to the United Nations was the League of Nations, and it failed. In the final analysis it could only tell aggressors what to do. It lacked the power to enforce the decisions that it made.
The founders of the United Nations learned the lesson of the League of Nations and its failure. They learned that there was no point in the new United Nations having rules unless it had the capacity to enforce those rules. They recognized that the role of the United Nations must be to arbitrate, to conciliate, to negotiate and to impose sanctions. In the final analysis, if necessary, if all those previous processes failed to achieve the objective to impose its collective decisions by force and it did, in Korea, some 40 years ago with the full support of Canada.
So it would seem the world and the United Nations have again been faced with an aggressor, an aggressor who will not listen to reason, who scoffs at United Nations resolutions overwhelmingly supported by the countries of the world, who allows sanctions to starve his poor, his people, but not his armies, who arbitrarily and without provocation invades another country, declares it his own, steals from its people, wreaks rape and pillage and murder upon them. In the interest of all that is right, this man must be stopped.
If the United Nations can do no more, then tell him to behave himself or tell the nations of the world to wait until he stops, hoping that sanctions might work, then the United Nations is reduced to ineffectiveness. But the United Nations does have the authority to go the final step and declared, some 50 days ago, that January 15 was the deadline for withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Because that withdrawal did not occur on time, there was simply no alternative to the option of force, to remove the Iraqis, free Kuwait and re-establish international order.
If the nations of the United Nations, including Canada, are not prepared to back up the United Nations in action like this, then we ourselves become the destroyers
of the United Nations. Quite frankly, it is as simple as that.
Since the founding of the UN in 1945, no nation has more consistently supported the UN than Canada because Canadians believe in the UN and what it stands for. It is both obvious and appropriate that Canada should stand with the UN on this issue as it has on so many others.
It is interesting to note that 29 countries of the world have not only supported the resolutions of the United Nations concerning the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but have sent forces to the gulf where they are now on active service. The countries represented in the gulf are from all the continents of the world, from varying political persuasions such as Liberal, Democratic and Socialist; countries as varied as the United States and Bangladesh, England, Czechoslovakia, Senegal, Italy, Argentina, New Zealand, Australia, France and of course, Canada. Some have suggested that if the shooting started, Canada should have walked away and withdrawn. Indeed, I had a few phone calls from people in my constituency suggesting this course of action. They stand for peace at any price it would seem.
In 1938 that was called appeasement. Those people's views are sincerely held. Their representations were made to me in a sincere manner. I respect their views, but I believe they are wrong. I believe the majority of Canadians agree with me and will support the position taken by this government on this issue. So long as you give into the bully, you will live at his mercy and be controlled by it. You will no longer be a free person or indeed, a free nation.
To those, including those opposite, who by their posturing and proposals for inaction recommend appeasement, I say you are wrong, as do those Canadian people who remember 1938 and 1939 or who have studied their history or who believe that the United Nations is the best vehicle for the preservation of international peace and security. The rule of law will judge you so and will say that this government, this Prime Minister and the majority in this House have indeed shown leadership and have acted in the best interests, not only of the world but of Canada.
There is a second message that goes out from our support of this resolution today. That is the message to the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, both those now in the gulf and those who may soon be called upon to go. In so going, they will put their lives at
January 17, 1991

risk in the fulfilment of their chosen professional responsibilities. The message quite simply is that we as Canadians are proud of you and are with you all the way.
At least half of those Canadians now serving in the gulf are residents of Nova Scotia. I can say to those courageous and professional Nova Scotians that my party and my government support you all the way. We are proud of the record of performance you have shown during the first five months of this crisis, a record of effectiveness second to none in the gulf.
We know you did not want a war. We know it is a time of fear and challenge for your families, and we know indeed it is a time of fear for you. But we also know the courage and the determination you are demonstrating in carrying out the responsibilities and actions for which you have undergone training, in some cases for as many as 20 or 25 years. We want you to know that Canadians are proud of you. Canadians thank you and your government will stand with you. We ask all Canadians to think of these people and their families and to support them. And we ask the Almighty to make this conflict one that will last no longer than absolutely necessary.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the hon. member for South Shore. I listened to a number of members on the government side today talk about the atrocities in Iraq, all of which are deplored by every member of this House.
There is no question that every member of this House deplores the activity of Saddam Hussein, deplores the human rights violations and the unmitigated savagery that has taken place. But some of us who have a very strong feeling that sanctions were not given a chance also have some difficulty with our so-called allies under the United Nations. I do not think anyone in this House would be prepared to say that membership in the United Nations gives a certain cachet that would be in keeping with the beliefs and the standards that most Canadians hold.
I would like to ask the hon. member for South Shore, in his party's delineation of the atrocities perpetrated by the Iraqis if he could tell us about the actions by, for example, President Assad of Syria, our alleged ally in this endeavour.
Government Orders


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Halifax for raising these important questions. She spoke of the atrocities and the fact that all members of this House condemn the atrocities that have been going on in Kuwait and committed by the Iraqis.
She said more time should be allowed for sanctions to work, and that raises certain questions with me. First of all, the longer you wait for sanctions to work, the atrocities continue in Iraq. I believe that those atrocities have gone on long enough and should be stopped.
Second, we have heard evidence presented before this House by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the effect that there is no evidence whatsoever that sanctions are having any impact on the military capability of Iraq. There is no question. Sanctions are hurting the people of Iraq. There are young people starving. There are old people starving in Iraq. The sanctions are hurting the people of Iraq but they were not negatively impacting the army and that in the final analysis is why it was time to move on to the next step, even though it was not one that people would likely or willingly choose to proceed with.
There is a second question that should be raised about sanctions. From the date that resolution 678 passed the United Nations, a resolution thoroughly supported in the United Nations, it was well known from that day that January 15 was the date upon which either Mr. Hussein would have his forces out of Kuwait or which there would be military action.
There is no question who made the decision. It is great for members opposite to blame the governments of the alliance for the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq, but let us not forget the record is unequivocally clear that the line was drawn and if you start moving the line, you simply allow this man to continue the desolation he was committing to Kuwait and who knows where he was going to go next. My hon. friends suggest we should have given more time for sanctions. Would that not be interesting. The sanctions continue, the war begins.
I would like to hear from them the logic of having Canada continue the sanctions while the other 28 nations go to war. Are they suggesting that Canada is the sole decision-maker in this situation? We are talking, quite frankly, about the fact that several months have passed, several resolutions have passed. The nations of

Government Orders
the world are united on this issue unequivocally and Canada seems to be the only one in which there are opposition parties that have wisdom that go beyond the wisdom of the nations of the earth, including the 28 or 29 nations that presently have troops in the gulf.
I think the comment was made earlier this day in this House that some of our friends opposite live in the ideal world but regrettably governments live in the real world, must govern in the real world, and thank goodness for Canada that we have a government that has the courage, the integrity and the commitment to do what is right for Canada and right for the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. I will now recognize the hon. member for Peterborough, for a ten-minute speech.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start out by reminiscing back to the thirties and forties, a time which many of us in this House can remember. While attending school I can remember the war starting. I can remember the war finishing. The thing that stands in my mind at this time when I am trying to assess the position I would take in this particular war is what happened during the thirties and what happened during the forties.
I recall that the United States, the one that seems to be getting the brunt of the criticism here from some opposition members, was very slow to get into that war that we are all so saddened with, having lost relatives in the war, and how much better it would have been if one of the strongest world powers would have had some interest in getting into the war two or three years sooner than it did.
What is happening today is just the opposite. One of the strongest world powers today, the United States, a member of NATO, a member of the United Nations and a strong supporter of the United Nations, is getting into the war as one of the first, one of the 28 countries in the United Nations, to my knowledge, that presently have a force over in that country which we are debating.
I think that it is in retrospect a better comparison that our friend, one of our best friends, one of our best allies, our major trading partner, if we want to discuss economics for a moment, from whom we both enjoy, Canada and the United States, a long relationship of friendship. I am pleased that the United States is our ally and is part of the confrontation that is going on now over in the gulf.
I think that history repeats itself in many ways. I remember back in the thirties, prior to the war, when over in the United Kingdom they were taking plebiscites. There were peace activists out marching in the late thirties and they were urging the United Kingdom to disarm and set themselves up as an ideal situation, sort of an idealistic view. We have heard some of those here today as well whereby because they disarmed and because they would not participate in war, somehow or other that would stop some of the atrocities that were happening in Europe.
We watched then a dictator, an almost if not totally, insane person walk over many of the countries in Europe while we all sat idly by, except the Commonwealth. We are fortunate in one respect, in retrospect, that Churchill would not disarm. We are fortunate that he thought that they needed air power and ships. Canada at that time was very strong in those areas too. We were one of the largest, if not the largest, commercial shipping countries with warships is the world, a great contribution to a Commonwealth gathering.
But then the League of Nations was sort of in disarray. The League of Nations did not have the power that the United Nations has today, did not have the support of as many countries as the United Nations has today.
This is a difficult subject for me, because I have lost friends and relatives in wars. I feel much better today than I felt as a student back in the 1930s and 1940s when our greatest ally the United States was slow to act and become involved. The League of Nations was literally inoperative from a combatant position.
What we are really doing here today is looking first at the position of the government. Each of us, in his or her own heart, is trying to determine whether we support it.
I will tell you right now that I am voting with my conscience, as I do on a lot of issues. I am not known to be an avid supporter of every bill that our government brings in. I have been in opposition and in government, both about the same length of time. I find that I can live with myself if I vote with my conscience on the issues
January 17, 1991

that I support, and I vote against the government from time to time, if necessary, on matters that are not financial. I think that is part of our Commonwealth system.
Here I am toying with whether I would be more comfortable personally by voting for the motion or against the motion. I honestly feel that I would be doing a great disservice to law and order, to civil liberties, and to the power of the United Nations if I voted against the United Nations' decision to set the deadline with 31 countries supporting it and 28 of them over there with troops.
We are not a major contributor to the armed forces at the moment over there, but based on the size of our country we are making a considerable contribution on behalf of the resolutions supported by the United Nations, including the eastern bloc. Who would have thought I would have said that I am on the same side as the U.S.S.R. five or six years ago?
Who would have thought that many of us in this room would have said that, except maybe a few? This is not an easy decision to make. I have come to the conclusion in my own mind that, rightly or wrongly, we are partisan. We are in politics, and I take political positions.
I have analyzed the political positions of the Official Opposition. I have looked at the positions taken by some of my friends in the NDP and I have taken a look at our Conservative position. I am going to support the Conservative position because I think it is the right one.
What is the Official Opposition position? It depends which of the right honourables you listen to in the Official Opposition, Mr. Speaker. We have the fortunate opportunity to assess two leaders as the opposition does of us. We have two right honourables in the House of Commons. They have two right honourables in the House of Commons.


Ron J. Duhamel: We only have one right honourable.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I thought they had a former Prime Minister leader and I thought they had a present former Prime Minister leader.
Government Orders


Ron J. Duhamel: But only one right honourable.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Which one then, sir, of yours is the right honourable?


An hon. member:: Mr. Turner.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: All right. You have one right honourable and perhaps one former?


An hon. member:: No.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: You have one former right honourable and one present-


An hon. member:: Only one.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Only one leader.
Let us take the two leaders of the Liberal Party, and let us look, first, at the position of the present Leader of the Official Opposition.
In a quote from a very recent Hansard dated January 15, the present Leader of the Official Opposition said:
-and our troops should be called back if there is a war-
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. If there is a war tonight, tomorrow or some day later, the minute there is a war, there is no more embargo, and they all come home.
A former leader in the House of Commons, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said that:
Even if the case for sanctions could be made, and it is a strong case, the issue today is not sanctions. The issue today is whether the United Nations resolutions will be obeyed. It was the United Nations that decided the date. It was the United Nations that decided not to wait for sanctions, and it was the United Nations that imposed its own deadline.
He went on a little further to say that we have never treated it as merely a talking shop.
As Canadians, we may have lost some idealism but we never lost faith in the United Nations.
The issue is one of which I had to break silence. . .1 believe that this Parliament has a duty to support the United Nations resolutions as those texts are written and, therefore, the resolution before this House.
I admire men like that. I have to say that, and I have never said that before about a member of the opposition while sitting in this House, but I have to admire a

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
member of the House of Commons, no matter which side of the House he or she is on, who has the fortitude to stand up in the House of Commons and tell people-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I must ask the hon. member to conclude since his time has now expired.
The hon. member for North Island-Powell River has five minutes for questions or comments.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the term bully has been thrown around numerous times and without the opportunity to justify anything that Hussein has done, it would have to be pointed out that two billion people in the world at this moment are arrayed against 17 million led by the United States. The United States is the major participant, along with Britain and France. They have now killed 350,000 people and destroyed the military infrastructure of Iraq. Iraq cannot respond.
In 24 hours, more Iraqis have been killed than all the Canadians since the start of the century in wartime. We are looking at a situation where it will be 650,000 or 700,000 tomorrow, and a million the following day. The capacity to commit atrocities is gone. The capacity to fight a war is gone. The only thing that can happen from here on in by the policy of this government to support the United States in continuation is butchery.
Would the member who stood up communicate immediately with the Prime Minister and ask him to phone George Bush and ask him to stop the bombardment?
We are dealing with a madman. The madman does not understand the nature and quality of the acts that have been besetting him. Allow the Iraqi people time to put him out, sue for peace, and prevent the needless slaughter of Iraqis. Half of that population is under 14 years of age. That is who is being killed now.
Would the member communicate immediately with the Prime Minister to verify the casualties to date and ask the Prime Minister if he will phone Bush and stop the insanity? If that does not happen, we have to ask who is the madman, or madmen?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I do on occasion, as often as I can, communicate with the Prime Minister. The last letter I wrote to the Prime Minister was on December 18. At that time I said that I had in my hand the report of Amnesty International.
Amnesty International details how Iraqi forces have tortured and killed many hundreds of victims, taken several thousand prisoners, and left more than 300 premature babies to die after looting incubators from at least three Kuwait City main hospitals. The report catalogues 38 methods of torture used by the Iraqi military, including cutting off people's tongues and ears, shooting them in the limbs, applying electric shocks to their bodies, and raping them.
Now, you answer your question as-


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the response. Could the hon. member explain qualitatively what the difference is between what the Iraqis did on a smaller scale and killing all the people. Is it revenge he seeks?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is not a point of order.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Well, I do not argue with the hon. member's right to want to debate. I am sure he will be given an opportunity to debate. In fact, I have heard him speak once already in support of the Iraqis in trying to save that country from further atrocities by stopping the war.
I wonder how many atrocities we could have stopped in the Second World War if we had not participated, if we had all become peacekeepers, and if Hitler was allowed to march from one end of the world to the other. The point of the issue is this: When in world history-I say this to the NDP-have we had unanimity on an international body including the eastern bloc, the western alliances, NATO, and NORAD? When in our history or our lifetimes have we ever seen such unanimity in bringing this man to a stop? I am talking about Saddam Hussein.
I think we are doing, contrary to what the hon. member feels, exactly what the majority of the Canadian people want us to do. I intend to vote for the motion. I know the hon. member has no intention of supporting war if he was doing the same thing as he has been doing since last August, and no matter if he did it for another
January 17, 1991

Government Orders
decade I know his objectives. I have been raised and lived with them, but I do not support them.
I think there comes a time for law and order. There comes a time to protect human rights. There comes a time when we need to unite as a force strong enough to repel the aggressors, the dictators, the people who want to rule the world.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I want to mention a couple of facts on which there is agreement.
No one in the House on either side of the House wants war. No Conservative, no Liberal, no New Democrat. None of us in the House want war. We all agree on that.
We also agree that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and he must leave Kuwait. We all agree on that.
We also agree now that the government has made the decision to join the hostilities to enter into the war, all of us-to the last man and woman in this House-support our troops. We support our troops and I challenge anyone in the House to say that I and particularly my fellow Liberals do not support our troops. We do.
I found it a little disconcerting when I heard earlier today a member from the government benches express concern about division in the House because it might be construed, particularly by our military, as a lack of support. Let me make it absolutely clear that I have far more faith in our soldiers than that kind of remark indicates.
I know in my mind that Canadian soldiers understand very well what Parliament is about and what the House of Commons is about. This is a place to debate issues, to deal with our differences, and to propose alternatives. This is what the House is about.
When it comes to a major issue, an issue that commits this country to war, an issue that commits our troops to a conflict where their lives are at risk, of course there are going to be questions and of course there are going to be disagreements. But that in no way casts any doubt on the ability of our soldiers, and casts no doubt whatsoever on the support that we give our soldiers, sailors, and airmen as well. Everyone in our military deserves full support, and they have our support.
Let us get to the matters where there is disagreement. First of all, international forces comprised of approximately 30 countries have decided to wage war. They have decided that sanctions were not working. They decided that the only way to get rid of Saddam Hussein, to get his troops out of Kuwait, was to wage war. That is where we Liberals disagree.
We disagree that this is the time to wage war, because there is nothing more horrible than the decision to wage war. War is murder. War is mass slaughter. It is carnage on the grandest scale. It is the method of settling disagreements. It is the method of last resort. In our conscience and in our hearts, we firmly believe the time has not come to wage war. It is as simple as that.
We looked at the results of sanctions and came to the conclusion that the sanctions, the embargo, had not brought Saddam Hussein down; he was still in Kuwait. We saw a strong indication that sanctions were working. They were warranted to continue and they should have been given more time. That is our position. That position is held firmly.
War, as one of the earlier speakers said today, is an indication or example of defeat and failure. War does not have a good track record. We know that there have been times in history-the Second World War is a good example-when there was no alternative. I suppose it was the best of a bad lot. But anybody who is a student of history, even a student of the rudiments of history, will understand that war is horrible and a failure. We should learn something by looking at history. We should learn, if nothing else, to search for something better than war.
We on this side, in a heart-felt opinion, feel that the use of sanctions in this particular case was an alternative and that sanctions deserved a good try. We should have exercised patience. That is why we disagree. It has nothing to do with canards that come sailing from that side of the House about possible lack of support for the United Nations. We support the United Nations to the hilt. I challenge anyone from the government side to say otherwise and to prove otherwise.
There is a second area of disagreement. I respect the government. It is a judgment call. I am quite sure that members of the cabinet had difficulty reaching the decision. The decision was to commit our troops and nation to war against Iraq, to enter into hostilities. That is the responsibility of the government, and the government has exercised that responsibility. We respectfully- and I underline the word respectfully-disagree with the

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
decision. Why? It is because I look at this country and I ask the question: Who are we? Who is this country? What is this country called Canada? What is our history? What are our traditions? Where do we come from? What is our track record?
I have only to go back a few years. It might be embodied in what is called the Pearsonian tradition, a tradition established by a Prime Minister of this country, an absolutely outstanding Secretary of State for External Affairs back in the 1950s. If that man had chosen the easy way out, he could have supported the British and supported the French at Suez, but he showed some strength, some vision, and said to the world: "There must be a better way". He chose a better way. He articulated a better way, and the world saw wisdom in that better way. And Lester Bowles Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize for that effort. That is where the Pearsonian tradition started.
Mr. Pearson was the Prime Minister of Canada, when the President of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson, decided to escalate the Vietnam war. Did Mr. Pearson join the Vietnam war with alacrity, with enthusiasm? No, because he saw a better role for Canada, a better alternative.
I think it is very easy to align with a superpower, to align with what is perhaps, at the given moment, the popular opinion. It takes guts and it takes toughness to offer something that is different, something that is perhaps not that popular at the moment. But Mr. Pearson offered an alternative and he showed wisdom.
That is just a part of our tradition. Let us look at it another way and remember that I asked the question: Who are we Canadians? We are a small country. As a military power we are diminutive, tiny. We are small potatoes when it comes to a military power, particularly when we compare our military power to that of the United States or the Soviet Union.
When it comes to a world problem like the conflict in the Persian Gulf, should we choose a military role? Is that the role where we can make the most significant contribution? I suggest not. Given the size of this country, the resources of this country, the tradition of this country, and the history of the country, we should be peaceseekers. We should be looking for a peaceful
solution to this conflict and now to this war. It is not easy. It will try our patience, but I think it is absolutely compelling on the part of this country to choose that kind of a role.
Another thing is that there are many dimensions of war, not just the fighting dimension-and this has been pointed out by other members of this House-such as the military dimension, the humanitarian dimension, the negotiating dimension, and the possible truce dimension or the actual peace dimension. There is a whole range of dimensions. That is where we as a country should be fitting in.
As far as I know, the war is not going to go on forever. Somebody is going to have to engage in talks. Somebody is going to have to engage in negotiations. If there is a truce effected, somebody will have to be a party to that truce. Somebody will have to maintain the true and help with that truce. The same goes with peace.
Is there a better country in this world than Canada? I suggest not. I think about the government's decision and, as I say, I respect the government's decision. But, truly, I say to myself: given our history and our traditions and what we might be able to contribute and offer, I think we have let ourselves down and the world down. I expected better. I wanted better.
Let me address for just a moment the application of war which I have said earlier is an example of defeat and failure. Another thing about war is that there is absolutely no guarantee it will produce the desired result. There is no guarantee that when we enter into war, we are going to get what we want.
When it comes to this war, even though I do not share in the decision, what do I want from it? Just like the Conservatives across the way, I want it to be short, I want it to be decisive, and I want Saddam Hussein out of there. I pray to God that there will be few casualties, that all our men and women in that theatre of war will come home alive, and that none of them comes home in a so-called body bag. That is my desire. I am sure that that is the desire of every individual MP in this House. Is there any guarantee that that is going to happen? There is no guarantee.
January 17, 1991

I wanted to point these things out because there seemed to be an indication floating from the other side that these things would automatically come about because we are all powerful, we are right, and God is on our side. The fact of the matter is that this war could be very protracted. There could be thousands upon thousands of casualties. If early reports are any indication, there have already been thousands and thousands of casualties on the Iraqi side.
Aside from the military part of it, is there any guarantee that we are going to get the political result that we want? Sure, we could knock off Saddam Hussein. We could destroy his armies. We could have an Iraqi pull-out from Kuwait. We could win that particular battle. But, can we win the political war in the Persian Gulf? Can we win the political war in the Middle East? That is in doubt. When I look at what is taking place in the Persian Gulf or in the Middle East in the last 40 years, I say that it is problematical at best. My worry, after we unleash the dogs of war, is that there will be an unbelievable destabilization of politics in that particular part of the world.
God only knows where war will take that region of the world. I do not know, but it worries me sick. In roughly the last 40 years, there have been what, five wars in the Middle East? Is this number six? Could there be a seventh, an eighth, a ninth?
I simply remind hon. members of this, because there is just no guarantee that we are going to get what we want out of war.
In my final remarks, I want to say that, as a member of the Liberal Party and of Parliament, I wish we were not a party to this war at the moment. I think we could have found a better way. It is a judgment on my part, but I think that we were on to a better way and should have continued with economic sanctions.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and my prayers are with every man and woman in our military operations in the Middle East. I say: Godspeed. I wish you luck, and I hope you come home soon and in good health.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I have watched this debate throughout the past several days, and I have had a great amount of difficulty in putting down on paper the words that I think most appropriately express one's true feelings with respect to the subject matter at hand.
Government Orders
As a result of that, I will not likely take the opportunity given to me to formally make a presentation to the House of Commons.
I would just like to make some comments that to a degree parallel the comments made by the previous speaker. I am not aware of any residents from my constituency who are directly involved, which should not for a minute make the trauma of the subject any lighter. As we have heard in the House, there are people whom we know and whose families are directly involved. As a result of that, we share the emotions that they must certainly be feeling.
There was a comment made earlier about how people intend to vote on this and how they are inspired to vote. I have given that some thought, and my comments relative to that particular subject are that essentially my hands are tied as to how I will vote. They are tied by my conscience and nothing else.
I have not been asked or told to vote in any particular way, but I think really and truly if one sits back and analyses where we are today and deals with the subject matter before us seriously as we must-if it was not before us seriously I am sure we would not be talking about it-we must, I think, vote with our conscience.
Those who have fought in wars before this one have paid the price. All the costs when rolled up together either by way of loss of life, psychological well-being, the loss of family, or the loss of family time together nevertheless spell a cost that has been paid for by and given toward wars of the past. For what purpose? For the purpose of peace, I say to you, Mr. Speaker.
Peace is not the sort of thing that, once attained, can be maintained without some additional costs. We are experiencing one of those costs unfortunately and regrettably today.
In the war that is currently going on, I understand that some references have been made to some rather significant losses of life. I further understand that these losses of life are directly attributable to military action on both sides, not that that loss of life therefore is justified any easier.
For those who are trying to put emotion into the debate and are saying that this represents a loss of life of children and of those not affected with the military conflict when all is said and done, we do know the facts. We will find that perhaps a major portion of the death is attributed to the military. I do not feel any better having said that, but I just simply to explain it. I believe that if you were to take everyone's position on where we are today, you would find no major divergence of opinion as to where we should go from here. There is some

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
divergence of opinion admittedly, but I think essential the matter before us suggests that perhaps blame should be associated to those that got us where we are today. I do not think that is productive and I certainly will not pursue that avenue at all because I think it is a waste of time.
I think that the solutions that have been placed before us by some people are based on an environment outside of an issue that we are familiar with and perhaps should be taken somewhat lightly. I think we have the integrity of the United Nations which has been placed before us and which has under its control the finest military force in the world. As a result of that our confidence should be placed in those who are making those kinds of decisions.
You are encouraging me to put a question before the speaker, and Mr. Speaker I intend to do that right now. I would like to ask: Have the solutions that have been proposed before this House of Commons in these past couple of days been based on poor, little or no information of the actual reality that exists?


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure whether I am clear on the question. If he is asking the question of whether the government has based its decision on certain information and certain documents, of course I am in no doubt whatsoever that it has had talks with people all around the world, is privy to certain information and has decided for better or for worse to join hostilities to commit the country to war. I said earlier that I respect the decision. It is a judgment call.
If I had been, say, the Prime Minister, I would have said: "No, that decision should not be made now. Maybe sometime down the road, I do not know when but maybe we would have no choice". But at this particular juncture, in my considered opinion and certainly in the considered opinion of the Official Opposition, despite anything we have heard, the war option was the first choice at this time.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, by way of commentary I find myself in agreement with many of the points made by the member for Winnipeg St. James, specifically his opposition and our opposition to this war at this time. We believe that sanctions should have been given time to work. But there is no question, as the hon. member
pointed out, that we are in full support of our young men and women in the gulf who are not only carrying the Canadian flag but carrying our hopes that they will be coming back safe and sound.
The point that we are debating here, support of the UN resolution, is a moot point because now our nation finds itself at war. Of course, we all support the United Nations. I doubt very much if there is anyone in this House who would oppose the objectives of the United Nations. I for one over the years have championed the cause of this august body.
I find that there are some problems arising. I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James perhaps to address two questions that I might put to him. I believe myself that the effect on the peacekeeping ability of Canada will be impaired because we are belligerents in the Middle East and that it will have an effect on our ability to be the peacekeepers a little later on. I wonder if he could address himself to that point.
Second, I wonder if the hon. member would be in agreement with me that there should be a Middle East conference to discuss all of the problems in the Middle East, including the Palestinian-Israeli problem at the earliest possible moment.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold for his questions. Let me deal with the first; whether our peacekeeping ability has been impaired because of this decision. Of course, it has been, because we have become belligerent. When the time comes for negotiation, and for bringing about a truce and maintaining the peace, we cannot be there. Who is going to accept us? I would doubt very much whether the Iraqis would accept us. I think I would be very, very surprised. So, some other country around the world will have to be found. Yes, I agree with the hon. member, I think our peacekeeping ability has been impaired.
On the second question, which is a bit more sensitive because of the word linkage, I would answer it this way: I do not think there is a doubt in the world that if genuine peace is ever to come to the Middle East, before that genuine peace comes, there will have to be talks. Enemies will have to talk to each other. There will have to be negotiations and, yes, some time down the road there will have to be a conference. I do not know how
January 17, 1991

Government Orders
you can change things without first discussing the matter. Lebanon. The United Nations condemned that invasion, However, linkage conjures up all kinds of things.	but nobody seemed to want to help the Lebanese.
I do not favour, and I eschew, or I would avoid linkage at this particular time because if you link the settlement in Iraq with the wider problem in the Middle East, it will appear that Mr. Saddam Hussein has been rewarded. If I will go into Kuwait, I will get the Israelis to negotiate. I will get somebody else to negotiate. I will be rewarded. And so, I would say that under the current circumstances I would like to avoid linkage. Some time down the road when things are settled down, yes, nations, diplomats and politicians will have to talk to each other.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out some of the facts involved in this Middle East crisis.
As we know, the Middle East has been a powder-keg of conflicts for many, many years, a powder-keg of conflicts when first the United Nations created the two states, Palestine and Israel. The Israel nation was bom there and the Israelis have created a homeland for themselves. But the Palestinian people were not given the opportunity to have a state of their own. As years passed by, many resolutions of the United Nations suggested that its original resolution should be respected and the Palestinians should be given a homeland.
In 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza and took away the homeland of the Palestinians. The United Nations had many resolutions to create a home for the Palestinian people. There was always an objection from Israel, complaining that it did not feel secure in its borders, and from the United States that vetoed in the Security Council the formation of a Palestinian state. Many nations requested that there should be a peace conference on the Middle East and there was always a veto in the United Nations.
Many years later, Israel invaded a democratic country, one of the forward-looking countries in the Middle East,
So Lebanon, for the last eight years, has been in an unstable situation. Before that, it was called the Switzerland of the Middle East. It had a thriving economy and an excellent banking system. It was a country that was an example of freedom of democracy in the Middle East.
We can ask ourselves why countries, which today seem so outraged by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq have created a war that is devastating for Iraq as well as for Kuwait. If the reports are right, I have just heard that Tel Aviv has been hit.
Why did those countries refuse a dialogue, a peace conference on the Middle East? Why did the United States and Israel not want a solution to the problem that exists in the Middle East?
Iraq, by the annexation of Kuwait, certainly committed an international illegality. But we should have waited for the sanctions to work. The sanctions, imposed by one of the first resolutions of the United Nations, were working.
I had the occasion three weeks ago to meet a senator from the United States in Washington who had just come out from a briefing and a talk with President Bush. He indicated to me and others that the sanctions were working; that the Gross National Product of Iraq had diminished by 40 per cent; and that this was a country where the sanctions really could work because Iraq had no access to the sea and very limited access to the gulf. It has Saudi Arabia on the one side, Jordan on the other, and Turkey and Iran. It is a country which can be closed. Therefore, it was an ideal situation for sanctions to work.
But those who opposed a peace conference in the Middle East-especially Israel and the veto in the United Nations Security Council-wanted to go to war. This is what happened.
Now one can say that the Middle East crisis is taking place at the same time as the Soviet Union is returning to a much harsher political system. As we know, the Soviet Union is now fighting the democratic governments of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Government Orders
Why is the world not outraged by the actions of the Soviet Union in the Baltic states? Those Baltic states were annexed by the then dictator of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin. He annexed those countries and we, in the west, have never recognized that annexation.
What we hear from the government side is that we have a new order and that the Soviet Union is supporting the United States in the Middle East. Certainly, it is supporting the United States in the Middle East because the United States had to withdraw most of its armed forces from Europe to send them to the Middle East.
The same thing happened in 1956 when Hungary was looking to a democratic society. At that time, the Soviet Union invaded Hungary and crushed the new democratic government of Hungary, and the west abandoned Hungary because it was preoccupied with the Suez crisis.
The same thing is happening today. The western powers have concentrated on the crisis in the Middle East and the invasion of Kuwait. At the same time, the Lithuanian people and the new democratic governments of Latvia and Estonia are being crushed by the tanks of the Soviet Union.
Even so, the Government of Canada and the House had a unanimous resolution to condemn those actions of the Soviet Union. It is only lip service. Is the Canadian government and the House going to ask the United Nations Security Council to debate the question of Lithuania? I hope we do, but, as somebody said, we have the Soviet Union onside on the question of Kuwait and Kuwait has 10 per cent of the oil reserves of the world. Naturally, Iraq, by invading Kuwait, now controls 20 per cent of the known oil reserves of the world. Why are we fighting in Iraq? We are fighting because there is oil and there does not seem to be any oil in Lithuania, Estonia, or Latvia.
We are fighting there because the American President believes that there must be a security of supply of cheap oil for some nations.
Are we defending a democratic country in the Middle East? Are we defending democracy there? I say that Kuwait is controlled by a family, a sheikh who abandoned and closed down the democratic process and parliament three years ago. This same sheikh who has invested $100 billion in the United States is able to buy the defence of his own country.
But this same country, Kuwait, had over 600,000 foreign workers and many Palestinians living there for 20 years who were never given the same rights as the Kuwaitis. They were exploited. The United Nations should have asked the government of Kuwait to give those people the right to vote and to participate in the administration of that country. Some of them have lived there for 20 and more years.
As we know, Kuwait was established by the British in 1961. Before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire and part of the province of Basra. This is why Iraq claimed that this was part of its territory.
We have been supporting Iraq, and the United States and the western powers have been arming Iraq when it was fighting the Iranians. One of biggest supporters of Iraq was Saudi Arabia because it was doing the dirty job for them, fighting the fundamentalism of the Muslims as it was practised in Iran.
We have a certain responsibility because we helped Iraq to get arms. We used the Iraqi people and we helped Mr. Saddam Hussein. Suddenly, once he had done the dirty work, he became an enemy. Mr. Bush has now associated himself with a dictator in Syria, one known to have been a terrorist all over the world. Now he is a good man. Suddenly he is helping Saudi Arabia and the United States, and he is our friend in the fight against the Iraqi people.
As the war progresses, there is more and more damage done to the economy of the Middle East and it will take many years to rebuild that economy and the instability is going to continue.
I would like to come back to the question of the link between the Middle East conference and the question of Kuwait.
I have the impression that the world, if it wants to be peaceful, has to see the problem that exists in Israel, which wants to be secure in its borders. I agree it has to have security, but it has to understand as well that it cannot live peacefully as long as there are camps in the West Bank in Gaza; as long as there are refugees in camps in Jordan.
I had the occasion to meet Mr. Arafat and talk with him. He told me he would be ready to have a state even without an army for the Palestinian people as long as it would be the Palestinian state that was created by the United Nations in 1947.
January 17, 1991

Government Orders
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that those who are engaged in the fight in the Middle East, our Canadian troops, are going to come home soon, and that there will not be any casualties.
Let us hope and pray that there is going to be a peace conference to end this war as soon as possible.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, while my colleague was speaking-I do not know if he was aware-but through CNN, a rolling SCUD missile they called it, dropped on Tel Aviv. Chemical warfare has been launched by Saddam Hussein against a country that I think showed incredible discipline, was not involved in financing Mr. Saddam Hussein, who in turn marched in and raped his neighbour. He deliberately attacked a country that had not been involved. There was no link to what was going on between Saddam Hussein and Kuwait.
I watched as the announcers and the reporters, with a great deal of bravery and some sense of foolheartedness, spoke without their gas masks on. Then they were advised to please put on their gas masks. It was with no great ease that they put these things on their faces. I thought it was supposed to be easy to protect yourself in this chemical warfare situation.
My heart is pounding. My stomach is sick. I cannot even cry, I am so numb.
Israel has not retaliated as yet. But I ask you, if you were a minister of state, if you were a member of the Knesset, or a minister of that state, what would you advise your cabinet and what would your constituents be saying to you right now? What would be the Israelis' expectation of their cabinet ministers and their leaders?


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I was informed just before I started speaking that there was a missile attack launched on Tel Aviv. I am really saddened to hear that it is chemical warfare.
This is why I personally felt that we should not start a war in the Middle East, but rather work with sanctions because sanctions were working. There certainly were very positive results from those sanctions, and I as a person who was born in Europe and who lived through war, know that once the war starts, you never know how it ends, the casualties and sacrifice of people, and the families that are being killed.
You ask me what would be my advice if I were a cabinet minister and I were in the Israeli government. It is a fair question, but it is not a question that is easy for me to answer. As you know, I am an outspoken person. I would say you have to react. I would not blame you if you did. But I still believe that those who are responsible for starting this war, whether it is Hussein or our neighbour to the south, are those who said we are going to do a surgical job. As you know, there is some information that already 300,000 people have been killed in Iraq. I answered your question, I think.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I too want to make a comment at this time. This will probably be known by many Canadians as the night of madness. The forces that have been unleashed tonight on Tel Aviv by Saddam Hussein will do incalculable damage not only to Tel Aviv.
Someone said earlier in the debate that Canada lost its innocence when it entered as a belligerent in this war. I suggest to you that the world is permitting itself tonight to be crucified. My colleague earlier asked a question. My question is not so much to the member from Calgary because in a way it is a rhetorical question. What happens to those children who cannot get on their gas masks? What happens to the men and women who are caught in the street and cannot get into a sealed room? All of us have spoken against the terrible sin of war and here tonight we all stand condemned.
We stand condemned as parliamentarians. The parliamentarians of the world stand condemned because we could not find a solution to this age old disease, the disease of war. I hope that the beginning of this madness will end before the whole world is sucked into the vortex of an incalculable slaughter.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. There is no doubt about it, we have unleashed powers that we now have difficulty controlling and this might be just the beginning.
I agree that we should pray that this comes to a quick end, that peace can be restored and that some sanity is brought to the minds of politicians so that we can find peace on earth and stop the hatred between people.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders


Mr.   Maurice@: Mr. Speaker, it is an extremely painful experience for me to rise in the House and speak in this debate, at a time when from minute to minute, we hear the conflict is escalating, attacks are becoming more frequent and casualties are rising.
In this context, the resolution we have been debating for many hours has become very meaningful indeed.
Mr. Speaker, in November and December I had the privilege of being at the United Nations when they were discussing resolution 678, which led to the debate we are having today.
I remember, with the delegates of the Canadian mission at the UN, that there were fierce and furious discussions on the issue.
Faced with this alternative, Mr. Speaker, the reaction was that they would not let the situation deteriorate to that point. However, after experiencing this new and different atmosphere at the UN after the Berlin Wall was brought down and the eastern block and communism were dismantled, we felt and we still feel the incredible strength and will of this forum, constituted as the United Nations. We felt it was the right instrument to deal with these problems, whether it was apartheid, the Middle East or, more specifically, Iraq.
What I found so impressive and convincing about the Canadian position, Mr. Speaker, was that Canada as such is an intermediary power. It is neither a superpower nor a small power. Among the 159 member states at the UN, the vast majority are small powers, countries that do not have the capabilities of the superpowers, meaning the economic and military capacity and the prestige that those powers have.
A few moments ago I heard the hon. member for Calgary East say that Kuwait as an oil-producing country had about 10 per cent of world production and was thus an important country. Doesn't the hon. member realize that the small powers I referred to which are members of the UN are always the first to be affected by the threat of rising energy prices? These small countries, members of the Commonwealth or the francophonie with whom
Canada has close links through its external aid programs, tend to suffer most as a result of these conflicts and threats. Countries that lack economic resources and a certain degree of military capability are the same countries that are hard pressed to maintain their democratic system of government. It is those countries, Mr. Speaker, that appeal to powers like Canada to intervene in these world conflicts because if no one intervenes before the problem escalates, the many small powers of our planet will be the first to fall victim to the invader.
Mr. Speaker, there is something I find hard to understand. Of course, we have to say that war is absurd. That is obvious. I never saw anyone either here in the House of Commons or at the UN say that war was the answer. Everyone agrees that war is absurd. But there was also a consensus, Mr. Speaker. In the Security Council, except for the five permanent members, the remaining members, the other ten, are basically small countries. Whether we are talking about Ethiopia, Zaire, Ivory Coast, Malaysia or Colombia, they are all small powers and they also voted because they are the first to be at risk as a result of such conflicts, because of the threat to their energy supply and their democratic systems.
Today, in the present conflict, these smaller countries are appealing to more important powers like Canada to help maintain a balanced situation. That is the meaning of the resolution adopted on November 29 at the UN and here in the House of Commons. It was exactly that.
It is easy for someone who does not have to make decisions to say: You should have said or done this or that. However, there is one man in this world who is not in a position to say that, and that is Saddam Hussein.
During my experience in New York, I had a feeling of great hope and optimism as a result of this development. I had a similar experience before in New York and Geneva and elsewhere, but this time, Mr. Speaker, I found that tremendous progress had been made towards achieving a world wide awareness of human problems.
Today's failure is indeed just that, Mr. Speaker, but these things do not happen in a vacuum. What we have to look at, what we have to do, I think, is not condemn those who made the decisions, because what we had was
January 17, 1991

a huge majority that was necessary to reach this kind of decision, and everyone was hoping it would not come to this.
We learn from what we are taught, we learn theory, and we also learn from experience. It seems to me that past experience has not helped us avoid such conflicts but it would also seem that aggressors, that invaders like Iraq have failed to realize that their predecessors in similar situations were not successful.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in the present situation, we will be able to use this organization, an indispensable instrument for the development of world peace, to draw from this unfortunate experience any benefits that are to be had.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. I would like to hear his reaction to this quote from an article by Alain Dubuc published in La Presse of January 14, 1991, under the title: "Canada should remain an ambassador of peace", in which he says: "Why should we send our young people over there to be killed? Why should we let the federal government spend billions of dollars to finance this undertaking? This reluctance is also understandable because of some deeply rooted traditions. Canada is not a military power, and the modest role it has always played on the international scene has tended to be that of a peace ambassador". Do you agree with this quote?


Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the distinguished editorial writer of La Presse is entitled to his opinion.
However, as I just said, Canada's present actions are no reason to conclude it is a warlike country. We must conclude that Canada is acting consistently with its military traditions. It is true that Canada is not a military power, but Canada is an intermediary power, and for some of the countries I mentioned earlier, the small powers, it has been a country that was able to support their claims. In this case, it has put us in an unfortunate situation, but that does not make us a warlike country.
Canada is not a neutral country. Canada is a country with honour, a country that is able to defend principles, alone and with others. And the principle applies, in this case, to Canada and to the global community. The resolution was passed. A consensus was finally reached
Government Orders
in the Security Council. It was backed by 159 member States, none of whom appeared to make any objections. Basically, the whole world was in favour of this tactic, if I may use this term, but some countries were hoping we would not have to go that far. However, these things do not operate in a vacuum. There is also the aggressor. You see how things develop. It was with that in mind that the* resolution was passed in November 1990.
Canada is not a military power and it is not a warlike country, but Canada was there in 1914 as it was in 1939, in 1950, and again today. It is a member of the United Nations and when you are a member of the UN and there is a consensus like the one we had on November 29, you cannot pick up your chips and leave when going gets tough. We have to be consistent, the same way that Canada as a country is consistent.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. What is his attitude to the Middle East problem and the possibility of a peace conference that would of course include Israel, the Palestinians and now also Iraq and Kuwait? Would he be in favour of such a conference?


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, without this conflict with Iraq, the international community would probably be holding this conference. Canada supported it from the beginning. It had the support of virtually the whole world, with the exception of one power. However, it is true that both situations need not be linked and there is still the need for such a conference.
We all hope this conflict will be short and that it will soon be followed by such a conference, since the United Nations have now the credibility allowing it to claim to be the forum that will bring about a solution to Middle East's problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. I apologize, I forgot the hon. member for Lotbiniere spoke only for 10 minutes and I recognize the hon. member for Ontario.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have to compliment the hon. member for Lotbiniere for his excellent presentation of what is obviously a very

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
important issue for all of us here in the House and for all Canadians.
Back in 1988, when I was asked what were all the issues that I would stand for and represent when I ran for election, this was not one of those issues on which I was asked a lot of questions, nor was it one to which I gave a lot of thought. I do not think that two years ago, if I had been asked what would be my views in such a circumstance, I would have have said something to the effect that I would cross that bridge when I came to it and hopefully I would never have to. We all know now that we had to.
Why do we have to make this decision? It is very clear why we have to make this decision. Some 170 days or so ago, a sovereign country, the country of Iraq, decided to invade another sovereign country, the country of Kuwait. A country of 17 million people, with over one million people serving in its armed forces, invaded a country of only 700,000. The war was started by Iraq with its total occupation of Kuwait.
The UN reacted, as it should have. It reacted almost immediately; it demanded an end to the hostilities and the removal from Kuwait of the Iraqi forces. The official hostilities ended not because Iraq left Kuwait but because it had successfully managed to conquer Kuwait and seize it as its 19th province. Sanctions, appropriately, were put in place by the United Nations and almost all commerce with Iraq was stopped. I say almost all, because there is clear evidence that some things were still getting in from Jordan, Iran, or by way of various other border points that may have been available.
It was said sanctions were having an impact, but were they? What were the results? Iraq is still in Kuwait, so obviously sanctions did not stop that from happening. We also know that today the armed forces of Iraq are greater in number than they were 170 days ago. Many reserves were called up to strengthen the very forces that were used to invade Kuwait. In Iraq, if top officials dissented with what Iraq had done, for some unknown reason they were executed.
If we think sanctions are not having an effect in one fashion, as I have just described, I will quote an article from the Toronto Globe and Mail. I think the comment is appropriate. It is always interesting for us to hear the
views of many people from other parts of the world. Here is what a Canadian said about the shortage: This article appeared, I believe, on January 11 and read in part:
Contrary to Western belief, the international embargo on Iraq is hitting hard, she said, and is particularly manifested in shortages of milk and medicine. 'As always, the pressure is hurting the women and children-not the people it's supposed to hurt."
The person speaking was Maude Barlow, someone whose views I generally have no support for on many of the issues, but that is her view of what is happening in Iraq. I cannot in my conscience accept that that is what we want to achieve with sanctions. I do not believe that our role is denying women and children the necessities of life.
Canada can be proud of its heritage, particularly as it responds to desperate situations around the world. When assistance is needed regardless of where it is needed, Canada has been there in the past. It is there at the present time, and usually where is it? Where brutal dictatorships exist. Look at the countries in Africa where the people are starving. The brutal dictatorships are functioning, and the people are starving. We are there to help the people, not the dictatorships.
It has happened in Africa. It has happened in Asia in the past. It has happened in Central and South America. We can be there, but I cannot support a situation that will only aggravate the circumstances of citizens in Iraq who are innocent probably of the very atrocities their leadership and their military have foisted on the country beside them. Because of a guy like Saddam Hussein, his citizens will suffer, but not just his citizens. The citizens of many countries around the world, the poor nations, the ones who have to import all their energy supplies, the ones who have to import many other factors will be influenced by the lack of stability in the Middle East.
Of course Iraq claims that Kuwait is now a province, its 19th province. We have provinces. I would like to quote the minister of information for Iraq who said: "Kuwait is Iraq's 19th province and not an inch of it can be relinquished". "Everything they think could be used or valuable is taken by the Iraqis," said Abdullah Shayeji of Kuwaiti University's faculty of commerce. Is that how we expect a province to be treated?
January 17, 1991

If one is in Baghdad, one will notice that most of the police cars on the streets are in fact from Kuwait. Is that what happens in Canada? Obviously not. We have not attached one province and stolen all of its possessions and hauled them somewhere else. It is clear to me that Iraq is not treating Kuwait as its 19th province. It simply went in to pillage and plunder. We certainly do not hear about those kinds of things happening in the other 18.
I have a number of other quotes I could use about the various atrocities in Iraq, but I think I will pass those by because we have certainly heard them from others and I do not think they need to be repeated. It is clear the atrocities have to stop.
We have heard people say: "Wait. Give sanctions more time." Yet we have not heard how long we should wait or for what, or if they would ever support military action. There is no doubt in my mind that a year or two from now, after the sanctions have proven that the people suffer more and that the military dictatorship has not suffered, we would have to use military forces against them. Then of course we have to deal with the fact that Iraq may be much stronger. However, one thing is certain: Iraq has proven it has no respect for the United Nations.
I am also concerned when I hear people say that this is not a United Nations effort, that this is in fact a U.S. effort, and that we are all teaming with the U.S. There are certainly a lot of nations on the Security Council. Do they really believe that all those nations are simply puppets of the United States? Do they really believe that China or the Soviet Union as members of the Security Council are merely following orders from the United States? When the call for military forces went out, the Liberal and NDP coalition would have the country believe that only those who responded were those in the control of the U.S. Can we imagine Afghanistan, Bangladesh, France, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, and the United Kingdom all being puppets of the United States, all with forces much greater than anything that Canada has sent there?
Or, can we believe other countries like Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark,
Government Orders
and Germany all being puppets of the United States? I certainly cannot, and I do not think they can either.
I would like to comment on our role in this regard. We are part of the United Nations. Many years ago we were part of another group of nations that liberated a country. Canada played a role. Our role was significant enough; we were important to the country of Holland. We can ask our veterans, those who served in Holland, whether their contribution was useful. As someone who was born in Holland, I can say that although the contribution of Canada in the over-all scheme may not be significant, the Kuwaitis today will greatly appreciate the support in freeing Kuwait supplied many years ago to provide opportunities of freedom and advancement to other countries in the world from its terrible invaders.
I am sure I could go on, but I recognize the time constraint. Clearly we have to support the United Nations in its resolution to deal with the Iraq-Kuwait conference.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be recognized so many times.
I have a question for the hon. member. Could he indicate how he feels about the fact that the Soviet Union at the present time is supportive of the action against Iraq but does not want to respond to the world community as far as freedom in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia is concerned?
As he knows, the Soviet Union in 1956 during the Suez Canal crisis invaded Hungary. When the west was turning to the Middle East, the Soviet Union acted at that time in Europe. The same thing is happening right now.
Mr. Gorbachev seems to work against the democratic processes that are taking place in the Baltic states. What are his feelings about it?


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. There is a substantial difference in the question that he asks and the resolution that we are dealing with today.
The resolution we are dealing with today is one in which all countries of the United Nations have condemned an invasion of one country by another. It does not mean I necessarily support what has happened in some of the places he has talked about, but that is not what we are debating.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
We are debating a United Nations action unanimously endorsed. We finally have the nations working together. We have in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics a leader who is showing that maybe he is prepared to turn around some of those things that were wrong 20, 30, or 40 years ago.
Clearly, what we have today is a United Nations resolution that we, and every other country in the world, have been asked to support. I guess that is the difference in the scenario that he describes. He has not got that kind of resolution, and how can we as a country today jump on the internal affairs of another country?
We may not like how that country was created. It may have been created 50 years ago, but under the logic that he would propose, if we go back far enough, Iraq was part of the Persian Empire and Mr. Hussein believes that the Persian Empire should be recreated from the Mediterranean to India, down through the Red Sea and Saudi Arabia. Are we going to say, then, that Iraq is right, that it should be allowed to expand its borders to the maximum because it existed 50, 100 or 300 years ago? Obviously not.
We are dealing today with the United Nations resolution between two sovereign countries. One invaded the other clearly in contravention of everything the United Nations stands for. We are members of the United Nations. To deal with those things we have to support within the United Nations.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, there are few occasions when members of this House are asked to rise on matters of such colossal importance as the matter which is before us today. It is impossible not to be moved by events as they are unfolding and to be deeply troubled by the prospect of what awaits the world in the days and weeks ahead.
My first thoughts are with the brave men and women who are currently in the Persian Gulf region. They face the agonizing uncertainty and doubt which only the reality of war can present. My thoughts are with the families of those Canadians who must now live with the unceasing fear that they may never see their loved ones again. Some of these individuals are my constituents. I cannot forget this. In fact none of us can forget for a single moment that the fate of the Canadians who are now in the Middle East may very well be decided in the next few hours and days. There is no room for outlandish
partisanship at this time as too many lives hang in the balance.
Canada and this House have faced moments like this in the past. Throughout our history as a sovereign nation, Parliament has held the ultimate responsibility for the well-being of Canadians when we and other nations have found ourselves facing the prospect of armed conflict. It is vital then that we as parliamentarians have the opportunity to debate fully the life and death situation in which Canadians in the Middle East currently find themselves.
The government must present the choices squarely and honestly. It must be straight with Canadians here in the House of Commons and across Canada. It must not hide its intentions or camouflage its decisions behind nebulous words. Unfortunately, I fear that with the resolution before us the government has done precisely this. The resolution asks that this government reaffirm its support of the United Nations in ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
All members of this House support the United Nations. We have reaffirmed our support time and time again over the last six months. We supported UN Security Council resolution 660 and 662 condemning the Iraqi invasion and the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq. We supported resolution 661 and 670 imposing mandatory economic sanctions against Iraq. We supported the use of military force under the authority of the UN to ensure sanctions are upheld and the use of Canadian Armed Forces to contribute to the enforcement of these sanctions. We condemned Iraq's detention of foreign nationals as hostages and the other brutal violations of human rights.
With the exception of resolution 678 endorsing the use of military force if sanctions had not achieved their objective by the arbitrary deadline of January 15, Liberals on this side supported all of the resolutions against Iraq.
But that is not the issue before us. The request before us, which has been rendered academic by the multinational attack on Iraq and Kuwait as of last night and by Canada's immediate agreement to participate militarily, is for the House to support the participation of Canadian military forces in a military operation led by the United States, an operation carried out under the vague parameters of a UN resolution but which has not been a UN operation. That was as clear as crystal last night as we watched events unfold on television and as we listened to
January 17, 1991

the President of the United States tell the world that Operation Desert Storm had begun.
When the Prime Minister announced the government's intention to engage our forces in this operation, the whole point became moot. The deed was done. Canada was at war. My leader and other members of my caucus have already made clear our answer to the question: Should Canada participate in the military conflict in the gulf? The answer was no. We felt that sanctions had not been given enough time to work. Alternatives short of war to persuade or pressure Saddam Hussein to give up Kuwait had not been fully exhausted.
That was the message this government should have carried to the President of the United States. We felt and still do, that Canada should not abandon so quickly its margin of independent action by following the United States directly into this war, that there was a more constructive role, a role more consistent with our traditions for Canada to play.
That is how my party and I would reaffirm our support for the United Nations. That is how we would choose to contribute to the unprecedented, collective security effort mounted by the United Nations in the face of this act of aggression.
I share the outrage of millions of Canadians at Saddam Hussein's blatant and brutal assault of Kuwait. I agree that this action cannot be tolerated by the world community. For a petty dictator like Saddam to be allowed to gobble up a less powerful neighbour would send the gravest signal to would be aggressors elsewhere, particularly in the Third World where any number of reasons can be dreamed up to question the boundaries and modify the existence of a neighbouring state. To allow people like Saddam Hussein to redraw the world map by brute force would send much of the world into anarchy. Opposing Saddam's actions is vital to peace and security.
But why did it have to be war? Did we really exhaust all possible options short of war, or have we acted prematurely? Must we now purchase with blood what perhaps another few weeks or months of economic
Government Orders
sanctions might have accomplished, namely the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait?
What happens if, God forbid, this war drags on, if the conflagration spreads to other countries in the Middle East, to citizens around the world through wanton terrorism, if it leads to the use of chemical, biological, environmental warfare? If we are obliged in the heat of battle to resort to ever more sophisticated weaponry, what happens to our resolve once the casualties begin to mount, once the international media begin to relay back to our livingrooms and to the front pages of our newspapers the images of the war, the carnage and inevitable atrocities? Will we be able to sustain our commitment? Can we be sure that our reasons for entering this conflict are absolutely above reproach, that as we look back, alternatives have actually been exhausted?
There is no question that there are compelling strategic reasons for expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. He is clearly the aggressor. Without by any means wishing for Canada to play the same role, I concede the important and generally favourable role that the United States has played as the defender of freedom and democracy. But the role as the most powerful nation carries with it powerful responsibilities, and it is not always clear that the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has always been above reproach.
I recently had occasion to read an article by Janis Gross Stein, a professor at the University of Toronto and one of Canada's leading international relations experts. In her article entitled "The Challenge of the Persian Gulf Crisis" she analyses the events which have led us to this war and tries to discern how and why events unfolded as they did.
In a very straightforward and honest manner, she poses the question: could the use of force have been avoided through more effective strategies of crisis prevention? Her answers are quite surprising, especially since she documents the events leading up to August 2 when Iraqi forces rolled into Kuwait.
She argues that for the last 10 years the United States and other nations have actively pursued a course of trying to establish Iraq as a major force in the Middle East, ostensibly to offset the perceived dangers of Iranian expansionism. She points out quite correctly that

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
in 1977 Iraq's Armed Forces stood at 188,000 and that barely 10 years later this number had risen to over one million troops.
Professor Stein contends that in the few days and weeks prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the Americans played a very dangerous game of what she terms deterrence and reassurance, that is to say the U.S. government sent conflicting messages to Iraq about how it would react in the event that Iraq invaded Kuwait. She cites U.S. defense secretary Richard Cheney's comments to journalists on July 19 of last year that America was committed to come to the defence of Kuwait in the event of Iraqi invasion. Only five days later on July 24, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department remarked, and I quote: "We do not have any defence treaties with Kuwait. There are no special defence or security commitments to Kuwait". Only the next day the U.S. ambassador to Iraq reportedly said to Saddam Hussein personally: "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait".
Many have contended that Saddam Hussein miscalculated how the world, and specifically the United States, would respond if and when he invaded Kuwait. Madam Speaker, it seems he may have had some help from the Americans in this regard.
I want to emphasize again, however, that I find any armed aggression on the part of one country against another totally unacceptable. This is especially true of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, more so when one looks at the atrocities committed by the Iraqi invasion. Nonetheless, our conduct in international relations, and particularly the conduct of the United States, has to be by virtue of its power and the responsibilities it holds absolutely above reproach.
I fear we have not all been lily-white in this. Neither has the United States, and by extension, neither have we. We must all share a portion of the responsibility for events as they have transpired, although none more so than Saddam Hussein. The government's willingness to support the Americans wholeheartedly in whatever they do, something they have demonstrated over and over again, is frustrating and ill-advised. I think it is one of the major reasons why our government has failed to
provide a more constructive role in the quest for peace in the Middle East.
The government has been far too caught up in the international game of brinksmanship to realize that we are plunging headlong into war.
Madam Speaker, this is not our war. But now that the war is here, we shall not shun it. Let us be clear about how this war came about. Let us be equally clear in stating that this could have been avoided, perhaps as early as last August.
No one has successfully made the case that sanctions were not working, particularly given the horrible consequences of resorting to war to achieve the desired effect of Saddam Hussein's ultimate withdrawal from Kuwait, given enough time. The imposition of the January 15 deadline was premature. I fear that the government's support of that deadline was shortsighted, that by doing so, Canada has forfeited a great deal of its credibility as a peacekeeper and as a peacemaker.
Whoever is to blame, there is no denying that war has arrived with a vengeance. Early signs of optimism have to be kept in perspective as we witness rumblings of discontent throughout the Arab world; as we see on our television screens tonight the terrible bombings of Israel; as we start to see the extent of the damage inflicted by the initial bombing of the multinational force and of the missile attacks by Iraq on western targets.
The Palestinian factor is still a grave threat to regional security. It is doubtful whether Saddam Hussein has been crippled to the extent which most of us would like to believe.
Therefore, the quest for peace must continue. The point of this war is to drive Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Yet we should remember that there is still room for diplomacy in achieving that goal. In fact, diplomacy is essential if we are to find any of the long-term solutions to the problems that exist in the region and which have been aggravated over recent days.
Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait will be but the first step on the long road to peace in the Middle East. Thus, this government has a unique opportunity to redeem itself as a peacekeeper; as a nation which still will go the extra mile for peace.
January 17, 1991

Above all else, we all must remember that first and foremost, the well-being of our troops and our civilians in the Middle East is our No. 1 priority. Likewise, the families and loved ones of our troops and civilians in the gulf must be accorded the kind of consideration and access to information which they so clearly deserve.
That is why I proposed today in this House that the federal government introduce a special hotline so that families can communicate directly to someone with knowledge about the whereabouts and well-being of their relatives and friends who are directly involved in this conflict in the gulf. I hope the government, particularly the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will accept that recommendation which I made to him this afternoon.
We owe as much to our people who find themselves in the Middle East in the middle of a war that they did not ask for but must now fight. We owe it to those whose devotion and commitment to Canada gives them the strength and the courage to fight for it and for the principles they believe in. We owe it to those who may never see their loved ones again and for whom the desert will be an unmarked grave. Let us resolve to do whatever we can to focus on peace to end this conflict as quickly as possible. Let Canada be the leader in achieving a constructive conclusion to this terrible conflict.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. I would like to emphasize that there were signals given to Mr. Hussein by the Americans which certainly indicated that the United States considered the border dispute between Kuwait and Iraq none of their concern.
I would like to quote the United States Ambassador to Iraq, April Galspie, who saw Mr. Hussein on July 25, just a week before the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. In discussing that matter with Mr. Hussein she said and I quote: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait". Naturally this was a very strong signal to Mr. Hussein that the Americans would not get involved in that conflict.
Government Orders
So there is certainly a responsibility of that ambassador in giving the wrong signal to the Iraqis and now we see the tragedy. I hope that in the future ambassadors are going to consult the State Department before giving such an opinion.
I would like to ask the hon. member what his opinion is on the question of a Middle East peace conference that has been requested for many, many years by the world powers, including the Soviet Union and the Arab world. Does he feel that this problem of a peace conference in the Middle East would have prevented the tragedy that we have today in the Middle East?


Francis G. LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. Before coming to the last question he posed, I would just like to make a few remarks to elaborate the point that I was trying to make with respect to the behaviour of the United States immediately prior to the August 2 invasion of Kuwait.
The point that I want to make is not a condemnation of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East or anywhere else, but U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East for many years has been exercised in the form of signals and nuances. That is the way it has been carried out, presumably, to achieve some form of regional stability. It has obviously not always worked. The point I wanted to make is when we contemplate an action such as that which was undertaken last night, we have a very difficult problem in generating and sustaining the commitment against the hostilities that may result. In democratic countries we have to deal with that problem. The United States felt it in spades in Vietnam in the 1960s. That is point I wanted to make, particularly in terms of the decision to go ahead and launch this attack and for Canada to just jump right in afterward.
To return to the peace conference question, the peace conference which has been proposed for many years as a vehicle for achieving a resolution of the Palestinian question is, of course, the thorny issue at the centre of the Middle East problem. I endorse it as a good idea, independent of whether in fact there was a conflict and independent of the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. I think the peace conference is a good idea but it is not at all linked to what has happened in Kuwait.

Government Orders
I believe that when this is over, a peace conference should be proposed and all participants should be willing to achieve a final resolution of this issue to ensure some kind of secure boundaries for the Palestinians as well as for the State of Israel. I think that is consistent with the UN resolution 242 and others. Ultimately, we have to achieve something like that before we will have lasting peace in the Middle East.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague. I did not arrive until the last five minutes of his speech, but I know him to be a very sincere individual who has once again shown that to be true.
In these kinds of situations I usually turn to Tommy Douglas and see what he had to say about war, peace and a whole host of things. We are talking about American foreign policy here. Tommy Douglas said that the Americans have their hawks and doves and the Canadian politicians have their parrots.
Another indication is that this war is about oil. It is about power and it is about money. A wise journalist in the United States said that if Kuwait was full of coconut trees and date palms, the Americans and the other coalition of nations would never have invaded Kuwait.
The President of the United States has tried on many occasions, as has our Prime Minister, to explain the rationale for this war. He started out by saying: "We have some national American interests in Kuwait". That was not acceptable. He then said: "We are going to lose jobs". That was not acceptable. So he turned to the aggressor stance. "Let's get after Saddam Hussein".
Last night was a surgical manoeuvre. Tonight I think it is resulting in a malpractice suit. I would like the hon. member to comment on American policy and Canadian corroboration, co-operation or just the following of American foreign policy in the Middle East.


Mr. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands -Canso):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member again for his kind words and for his question. Canada and the United States are two very different countries and we can and should pursue our interests and our responsibilities on the world stage in very different ways.
For Canada to simply follow the United States, whether the United States may be pursuing its own interests or world interests, is invalid. I believe that Canada has a
role to play by being independent of the United States; by maintaining its margin of independence; by maintaining its freedom of action and by not marching locked step.
A precise example is that we are not opposing the United Nations or we are not against the United Nations because we do not do exactly what the United States does, but we actually could be supporting the cause of peace and the cause of world stability by acting independently and differently than the United States.
American foreign policy, because America is the giant that it is, pursues a whole range of different interests. I am not the one who would be the first to dump all over American foreign policy. Obviously, in Kuwait there are some strategic interests, not only to the Americans but to everybody else.
I do not see why Canada cannot pursue an independent role in the Middle East, particularly with this conflict, and be very constructive without having to embark on a war. Certainly, I do not believe that necessarily it is a wise course for the United States to have got into this war at this time. I think it is dangerously premature.
I think it is an error in judgment that the American government has made, quite frankly.


Jack Wendele Shields: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, before the debate starts. I am wondering if it is possible and whether there is agreement in the House to allow our pages who are first year university students to leave tonight, and maybe just keep a skeleton staff to man the phones and let the rest go home.
They have studying to do, and we are keeping them very long hours.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion.
We will do some kind of negotiations behind the curtain, and I am sure that we will come to some kind of an agreement very soon.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver):: Madam Speaker, I honestly wish I lived in the world that is envisioned by some of the members of the opposition.
I wish I lived in a world in which all things were negotiable, where all people were reasonable, where discussion could take place and solutions could be
January 17, 1991

arrived at with dispatch and where everyone was amicable to the result. Unfortunately, I do not live in such a world. Nor do they, and they do not seem to know it.
Let me talk about Saddam Hussein for just a moment to begin with. This man, with his uncle, killed his first man at the age of 15. At 20, he headed up the execution squads of the party. At 25, he placed himself in a position where he was in charge of security for his government and then, by murder, finally achieved the dictatorship which he now controls in Iraq.
This is not a man whom you can negotiate with. This is not a man who deserves consideration at all. There has been six months of so-called diplomacy with Iraq. He said exactly the same thing at the end of the six months as he said to begin with despite peace proposals and conferences of all kinds proposed by all people.
Finally, in desperation, the United Nations passed resolution 678, which meant that after January 15 there could be force used to remove him from Kuwait.
The major argument I hear is that the sanctions should have been allowed to work and that they should have been continued. It might take another six months, another year or year and a half. Even those who most firmly believe in sanctions were not prepared to set a time limit on it. That, or war.
If we have sanctions, of course there is no war, no great piles of dead and no great war machine moving into action. It sounds good, but let's also look at what sanctions mean.
In the small countries such as Senegal, from one day to the next its energy bill doubled, which meant hardly any money left over for health or education. That happened in many Third World countries.
Let us talk about Kuwait itself. We have seen six months of brutalization, rape and pillage take place there, and it is continuing. All right, if you want sanctions, you must be prepared to see that total kind of destruction and suffering in the rest of the world, you must be prepared to see Kuwait utterly destroyed as more and more citizens are killed, and so on.
There is no easy answer here; there is no easy answer at all. Sanctions mean suffering to some other people and, quite frankly, if you feel as I do that sanctions would never work with this kind of barbarian, this jackal, as he is called, then I think you understand that sanctions also mean tragedy in Iraq itself. It will not be the military that suffers, it will be the poor people of Iraq that the sanctions will affect. You pay your money, you can have.
Government Orders
your choice. I prefer what has now happened, with an attack on Iraq by the United Nations, by the four major powers. There is an old line that states: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing". Well, we did everything we could for six months; it amounted to nothing and now something else is taking place.
If we go back in history to Manchuria, 1931; if the League of Nations had done something then who knows what the world would be like today. In 1935, in the case of Ethiopia, had the League of Nations been able to act, we might not have had the Second World War. In 1936, the Rhineland, and on, of course to Czechoslovakia. Had the major western powers acted at that time, history now tells us Hitler would have been destroyed, he would have backed down and been replaced and we might not have had the Second World War. You can appease but if you do you threaten to repeat history.
I am slightly annoyed, more than that I think, with many of my colleagues who wish to damn the Americans. My only thought is, thank God for the Americans. Without the Americans in 1950 in Korea, without the Americans today, fighting in Iraq, without their great strength, I do not know what the world would be like. I would also point out that some things they do we do not like but they have not been empire builders. They have gone into countries but they have come out and left those countries to run their own affairs. This is not the case in terms of Iraq and Kuwait. Frankly, this barbarian must be stopped; he must be destroyed.
The attack with nerve gas, as reported in Israel tonight, is another indication of the kind of individual that you are dealing with. You are not dealing with the Iraqi people, you are dealing with a despot and a total barbarian. I only hope he can be destroyed and destroyed quickly, with a minimum loss of life so that the world can continue on.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, my very good hon. friend, who has a very good knowledge of history, has given us good examples of how the outcomes might have been had the world acted differently. Would he very kindly comment on another historical fact that took place and tell me where the world would be tonight when, on November 29, 1947, the United Nations, that all of this party is so pleased to acclaim today, and rightly so, decided that the time had come to create in the land of Palestine two states, one for the Jew and one for the Palestinian. Would my friend, who is highly knowledgeable about history, care

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
to comment and tell me if the world today would not be safer and more sane?


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I would love to comment on that because the hon. member has a rather coloured picture of the history of that time. However, remember this: Israel was a peaceful country, and the Jewish state when it was formed was attacked by all of its Arab neighbours. They fought them off, established lines-


Marcel Prud'homme: In '48?


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: We are talking '47 and '48. We are also talking about the Arab countries that persuaded the Palestinians to leave their villages and to leave the Jewish state. We are talking about those leaders in the Arab world that set up those refugee camps and maintained them for years for political purposes, not in the best interests of the Palestinians.
The Palestinians have been hard done by the Arab world, not by the Jewish state. The hon. member shouldn't ever forget that when he talks now in terms of the world being different if we did not have a Jewish state. Thank God Israel is there.
Surely, sooner or later, perhaps the Arabs will quit fighting among themselves and allow the Palestinians to take their proper role in the Middle East. It is the Arab world, not the Jewish state, that has contributed to the great suffering of the Palestinians over the past 40 years.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for North Vancouver said at the opening of his remarks that he wished he lived in a world so that all things were negotiable. He suggested that somehow those on this side of the House were naive because we believe in negotiation.
I liken negotiation in this instance to two young tough guys fighting it out in the school yard. What we have is one beating the other one up very badly. He has the other one on the ground with his hands around his neck and is banging his head on the ground saying: "Do you give, do you give?" But he will not take his hands off his
neck long enough for a yes or a no. You cannot negotiate unless you allow the other one to answer.
I am responding to that comment from the hon. member because we now have a situation where, after last night's attack, the question has not even been asked: "Do you give?"
I know the hon. member has been in the House waiting for his opportunity to speak. He will be happy to know that the latest report is that the warheads that struck Israel were not chemical warheads. I am sure he shares with me a great deal of relief about that.
The hon. member asked: "Can you imagine how sanctions would hurt the people of Iraq if they continue?" I think I am quoting him correctly. My question is: Could he tell me if he does not believe that the action last night very much hurt the 350,000 people who died?


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Madam Speaker, there are two quick caveats. I am curious as to where the figure 350,000 came from.
I am delighted that they were not chemical warheads that struck in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem tonight.
As far as the rest of it is concerned, we have had six months of solid diplomacy and negotiation and got absolutely nowhere with this barbarian. There comes a time when you must take action. I repeat the line I gave in the speech. "All it takes for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." The time is for action now.


Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Madam Speaker, on August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein brutally invaded Kuwait, a fellow Arab nation. His purpose was simple. He wanted to extinguish Kuwait as a nation and systematically acquire its wealth. What he did not count on was the united condemnation of his actions by the United Nations.
Saddam Hussein turned a deaf ear to the world and quickly massed his troops along the Iraqi and Kuwait borders with Saudi Arabia. In a rapid response some 30 nations, including Canada, sent military personnel and equipment to the region to deter any further aggression. This was not simply a collection of nations acting individually and unilaterally, but instead a united stand
January 17, 1991

against Hussein's actions under the umbrella of the United Nations.
The United Nations Security Council condemned Iraq's naked aggression on the very day of that invasion. Subsequently, 11 more resolutions have been adopted by the Security Council, culminating with resolution 678 which authorized the use of force if Iraq did not withdraw by January 15, 1991.
The most startling fact about this situation is that we have walked down this road before. Over 50 years ago, the world was faced with this very type of naked aggression. At that point, that fork in the road where apparently small decisions marked a very critical choice, the results were a very different result for mankind.
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain talked about peace in our time. He and much of the world put their trust in the policy of appeasement. The world wrongly assumed that if it appeased aggression, the aggression would end. History has shown us the horrible price of that policy.
The original intent of this motion before the House tonight was to show whether we had learned that lesson from history. Actions taken by the international community against Iraq indicate that we have. I believe that the United Nations and Canada in its own role-I am convinced, in fact-is that Canada is taking the most appropriate path.
Last November 11, Remembrance Day, I was in my constituency in the town of High River, Alberta. There was an edge of emotion to that day because it was the first time for a considerable period of years when Canadian forces were on duty, away from home, in an area that could potentially become a war zone. That emotional edge came through that day. Canadian forces were moving toward the gulf. There was, of course, the recognition of those who had made their sacrifice in previous world events. But the master of ceremonies also made reference to me, giving me a message as a member of Parliament, and that message was make the right decision, but try all possible diplomatic alternatives to solve this situation.
The speeches made here the day before yesterday by the Prime Minister and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs outlined in intricate detail the countless diplomatic initiatives all sadly rebuffed by the regime in
Government Orders
Iraq. The choice of the right path for the United Nations and for Canada, because we did have a choice, was clear.
No nation and no leader takes a decision to use force or to enter war without knowledge of the potentially horrendous consequences. While early reports were encouraging, I have no doubt that the United Nations forces will face very great challenges. Nothing can be taken for granted. Reports even in the last couple of hours suggest that the State of Israel has suffered a missile attack of, as yet, an uncertain impact and also of an uncertain but potentially volatile result.
We should not be surprised by a volatile circumstance like this, for the risks and the uncertainties are legion and dangerous, but the objective remains the same as it was yesterday and the day before. The objective is the rejection of naked aggression, united action by united nations, and a world order where peace is an enduring possibility.
Many constituents have asked me why we are in the Persian Gulf. Canada is in the gulf because of our commitment to the United Nations. We are a founding member of the UN and have always supported the role it has played in the international community. The UN has seldom been more effective in unity than it is today. We need a UN which secures world stability.
The cold war has melted away. With the bipolar world of the U.S. at one side and the U.S.S.R at the other-each maintaining control within their own spheres of influence-having dissipated in the last couple of years, we need an instrument, a means, to keep the peace in the world. Clearly, the United Nations is the body through which that can be achieved.
We, as Canadians, cannot accept the benefits of membership in the United Nations without also accepting the responsibilities that come with that membership. My conviction is that we must act as Canadians, not as boy scouts or girl guides in the international scene, but as a nation of commitment and a nation prepared to step forward and play its appropriate role.
In light of our stand in this crisis, where Canada chose the path of principle, our standing, and the standing of the United Nations as a result, is strengthened in the long-term search for peace.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
In other circumstances, people speak of the effect of victimization. One person may be the victim of a particularly disastrous and destructive act of another. It is not just the individual that that happens to. It is not just the victim who is victimized. So are the members of that person's family who suffer with the consequences.
In the family of nations, particularly small nations such as Kuwait and Canada, when one nation is a victim, all nations are victimized. None can afford those immoral results.
In reverse, when there are heroes, we pay tribute to the courage of those heroes. The families and the loved ones of those individuals are heroes as well.
I conclude by paying tribute to the bravery and courage, not only to the Canadian Armed Forces men and women, but I pay tribute to the families of those men and women, for they, in their own private ways, are heroes by association.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, quite often in the debate tonight we have reflected upon the essential point of the need for the economic sanctions which were previously imposed before the United Nations alliance came to exercise its final options.
A critical point that many members in the opposition have made, including our Liberal colleagues, is that insufficient time was given for those economic sanctions to take bite; that in fact President Bush drew an arbitrary line in the sands of times on January 15 and set that as the deadline.
There is ample evidence to suggest that, given time, those economic sanctions would have indeed proven to be most effective in convincing Saddam Hussein to reconsider his unnecessary aggression against Kuwait.
For the digestion of the member opposite, I want him to consider the comments that were made by the United States CIA director, Mr. Bill Webster, before the U.S. Congress, back in December.
He said: "Iraqi exports had been slashed 97 per cent and imports reduced to 90 per cent of the trade before the annexation of Kuwait." He went on to say that 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
and without them," he concludes, "the dictatorship will inevitably perish."
I would like to submit, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, for the member's consideration that that is very strong evidence and that, given time, those economic sanctions would have and could have done the job. The reality that we face today, with the carnage we see developing in the Middle East, with the decision to pull the pin-the trigger-is that those economic sanctions have not been given the opportunity to work.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague opposite me asks the question: Was there sufficient time for the sanctions to work?
The answer to that will become clear with history. The evidence in the public domain suggests that those people who would suffer most under sanctions are the people in Iraq least able to look after themselves. Those who would be the last to be affected would be the armed forces of Saddam Hussein. The first people to suffer are the children like the Kuwaiti babies who were brutally murdered when Saddam Hussein moved into Kuwait.
What was worse was that Saddam Hussein was using this time to stall, to build up his armaments, to position himself in Kuwait, and to prepare himself for the battle that was coming. He was preparing for environmental disaster.
My friend opposite, I am sure, believes that we could afford to wait and to try to negotiate time after time. That is what has happened over the last months since August 2. There has been attempt after attempt, by country after country, culminating in the several attempts by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to respond to this crisis and to appeal for some signal from Saddam Hussein that he was genuinely prepared to sit down and talk, and to relinquish property unjustifiably seized from Kuwait in a brutal act last summer.
I think that the evidence is clear.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, this is a very difficult debate to participate in at this stage since things are changing very rapidly in the Middle East.
We have to ask ourselves the very fundamental question; that is, should Canada have gone to war? Should we have been a participant in that war? Should the
January 17, 1991

American-led forces have declared war yesterday? My answer to that is no.
I think sanctions should have been given more time to work. Diplomacy should have been given more time to work. It was a mistake to go to war at this time. This war will cost thousands and thousands of lives. Already thousands of people have been killed, many of them innocent civilians, children and people who have no responsibility whatsoever for Saddam Hussein.
At the same time, I, like anybody else in the country, agree that Saddam Hussein is a madman, a person who has been a very destructive person, and that he has to be stopped. The question is: How do we stop him? I maintain-and I think a lot of people in this country maintain-that the way to do that was through sanctions.
First, I want to talk about the war. The question is, should this country go to war? If we believe this country should go to war, then I think, as the politicians who make that decision, we should believe that our own children, if they are of age, should go to war.
I want to personalize this for a few minutes. I have a 17-year old son and I do not believe he should go to war in the gulf. If I do not believe he should go to war in the gulf, how can I vote for any resolution that would ask another Canadian young man or young woman to go to war in the gulf? I ask members to reflect on that. To personalize it, the Prime Minister has a couple of children around the same age as my 17-year old son, Jason. He has a boy and a girl of roughly that age and he should reflect on that. We should all reflect on that.
I received a Christmas card from a constituent in the little town of Invermay who said that her son is with the CF-18 squadron in the gulf. She is extremely upset that Canada is involved in this war. She asked me in her letter, if Joe Clark had a son the same age as hers, would he be so gung ho about going to war. These are some very personal questions, but I think we have to answer them honestly as to how we would react about our own families and the people who are close to us, and then try to expand that to other people in the country because we are all Canadians. As a matter of fact, we are all citizens
Government Orders
of the world, not just Canadians, and war is a devastating thing.
Some 22 years ago when I was first elected as a member of Parliament in 1968, I was one of four members of Parliament who over a three-year period volunteered to be an observer in the Biafra-Nigeria war.
I spent seven days in the war zone. I saw bombs dropping. I saw people attacked by MiG fighters that flew over us in the middle of the night. I saw anti-aircraft fire on the MiGs. I saw people dying in hospitals because they had been bombed and shelled. I was in sick bays where people were dying of starvation, mostly women and children. I saw the effects of war and how these people had been ravaged by war. It was an experience that profoundly changed my life in terms of how I look on the consequences of war.
That Saddam Hussein is a dictator and a madman, we all agree. But there are a lot of little kids in Iraq and in Baghdad and all across that country who are not responsible for Saddam Hussein. They have been killed already, will be killed tonight, killed tomorrow and the next day. There are kids in Tel Aviv, innocent people in Jerusalem, who are under attack tonight because of the consequences of that war, people who have no responsibility whatsoever.
What has happened is fundamentally wrong and I think our country made a very serious tactical error when it decided to participate in an offensive mission in the gulf. We should have participated as we did in the enforcement of sanctions, but we should not have engaged our military in any offensive way. Instead, we should have been using that military for humanitarian purposes and in a peacekeeping role, a role which has probably now been sacrificed because of our involvement against Iraq in this particular war.
We should have pursued sanctions. There was some evidence that sanctions were beginning to work. Ninety-seven per cent of Iraq's exports had already ended because of sanctions. Some 90 per cent of its imports had already ended because of sanctions against that country taken by the multinational forces. Industrial production in Iraq had declined by some 40 per cent since August last year, and the gross national product in Iraq had declined by 30 per cent since the month of April. The largest suppliers of arms and parts to Iraq had totally stopped supplying Iraq.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
It was a mistake for our country to become involved in an offensive military way. It was a mistake for the United Nations forces, led by the United States, to attack at this particular time.
There is a lot of killing. There will be a lot more killing. There is a very serious possibility that this thing can escalate a lot more than has already happened in the last 24 hours.
We should reflect upon the failure of humankind to be able to resolve our disputes through peaceful and nonviolent ways and some of the hypocrisy that we see around the world. Only a few months ago the Americans were supporting Iraq. The Soviet Union and the French were supplying Iraq with arms to balance off Iran two or three years back. There was the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan and how we all condemned that, but of course there was no force used against them. The Americans talked about a new world order after their involvement in Nicaragua, Panama, El Salvador, and Vietnam. Some people said: "Well, sanctions would not work because we tried them for four or five months in Iraq," and yet we had sanctions working in places such as Rhodesia and South Africa.
If we had given sanctions a few more months, even a few more weeks, or maybe a year or so, we may have avoided killing tens of thousands, and maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent people all around the world. I do not say only in Iraq, I say all around the world. When you drop a bomb on Iraq, that bomb reverberates in the ghettos of New York and may reverberate in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, or in Montreal, or any other part of this country.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, since this afternoon we have heard frequent references by government members to peace and to Mr. Pearson. All I can say is that as a result of recent events, it will be very difficult for us in Canada to maintain our position as peacekeepers, a position we earned at great cost. From now on, we will no longer be perceived as neutral peacekeepers. As they say in English:

-"When you unleash the dogs of war, you never know on whom they are going to turn."

Today's events prove the situation is becoming increasingly horrifying and catastrophic. I deplore the fact that Mr. Pearson's approach no longer prevails, and I must say that what worries me most, Madam Speaker, is the question of the government's agenda, its political and its military agenda.
My comment is this: Why didn't the government recall Parliament at the beginning of January or the end of December? Did the government know something about the military agenda and did it arrange its own political agenda accordingly?
We see that Canadians are tom on this issue, at a time when we should be united. We have a Parliament that is torn. Members contradict each other. They express all kinds of opposing views, at a time when we should be united, because today, this evening, the situation is catastrophic in this country. In concluding, Madam Speaker, I want to tell the government and government members that I have the impression they have developed a political agenda around their knowledge of a military agenda.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments. Is there rebuttal? The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not have time because my friend from Edmonton wants to make a few comments, but I will pick up on one of the comments made by my friend from Ottawa. He made a comment that Parliament should have been called back in December or January, and I certainly agree with that.
This is a very serious situation. I believe that Parliament should have been called back. I believe that there should have been a question put before the House of Commons and the question should have been along the lines of: Does the House of Commons agree with the proposition we should send Canadian soldiers to war in the gulf?
That question was never put to the House of Commons. We should have had a free vote on that question by all three parties in the House, plus all the independents of this House; that the members of this House of
January 17, 1991

Commons should have voted according to their conscience or according to the wishes of their constituents. I think that is what we should have done.
The most important issue we are ever going to face in Parliament is the issue of peace and war. When we decide to send young Canadian men and women off to a war in a different part of the world, then surely to God it should not be the government of the day making that decision in the cabinet rooms without the full and free debate and consent of the House of Commons, regardless of what party that member of Parliament represents.
That has been a fundamental failure in this process. The Canadian people deserve nothing less. "Deserved"-I will put in the past tense-nothing less because the decision has already been made. Canadian people deserve nothing less than the Prime Minister coming into the House of Commons, putting on the Order Paper the question of whether or not we would participate in offensive military action in this country. He should have put that question on the Order Paper and we should have had a free vote of all members of the House of Commons.
Now surely that is the least we could have expected from the Prime Minister of Canada. I just wish that the government backbenchers across the way would have screwed up the courage and insisted that their leader allow a free and democratic vote on this issue. They did not do it, and now the country is going to pay for it.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, Canadian participation in the war in the gulf is a terrible and tragic mistake. Indeed the war itself is a terrible and tragic mistake.
In every forum that I have had made available to me for the last several months, I have argued that point. The fact that war has been declared does not now make what had been the prospect of a wrong war into, now, the reality of anything other than a wrong war, a terrible tragically mistaken war.
Before I get into the question of what is wrong with this war, I would like first, however, to salute and to declare my complete support for the brave women and men serving in the Canadian forces in the gulf. To them we owe a debt that we cannot ever pay for they are preparing to incur on our behalf horrors-and perhaps final horrors-that we can never experience. At least, I pray we never have to experience them.
Government Orders
What I have to say tonight about the war in no way reflects on the high esteem in which I hold the women and men that we have sent there to fight on our behalf. Indeed, Madam Speaker, the women and men of all of the forces fighting in the gulf, and of all the civilian population living there, on them are the horrors being visited about which we only talk.
The government has advanced three and a half arguments for Canada's participation in the war. I would like to deal briefly with each in turn.
The first is that we must engage in this attack on Iraq and this war, or we will have failed to support the United Nations. That is bunkum. It is bunkum from a couple of points of view.
The first is that the resolution that authorized this war, resolution 678, states in its all-important paragraph 2 that the Security Council "authorizes member states to-use all necessary means to uphold and implement-" resolution 660 and so on, having to do with removing Iraq from the gulf.
It "authorizes" the member states. It does not compel them. But it authorizes them to use all necessary means. It does not specify the means. To say that we are compelled by resolution 678 to engage in a war is false. It is utterly and completely false.
Because it is false you will find that the active combatants in the gulf thus far number precisely five. Of those 31 member states which we have been told repeatedly in this House are among those states enforcing the actions of the United Nations in the gulf, precisely five are engaged in hostilities.
Among those others that have been named, Argentina, which by the way is there with war ships and 100 troops, has said that its troops will not fight in any offensive role.
Czechoslovakia has sent 200 anti-chemical warfare troops. They have no offensive capacity. They are there in a strictly defensive capacity.
Denmark sent one small frigate. This ship was sent to enforce sanctions and will stay if war breaks out, but it is not playing any offensive role.
Italy, with eight Tornado fighter bombers, has required that a parliamentary vote be held before any of its forces go into action. That vote has not been held and is not anticipated.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
New Zealand sent two C-130 transport aircraft and a medical team. They have no offensive role envisaged for these forces at this time.
Norway sent one coast guard ship. Again, this coast guard ship has no offensive capacity.
Even of those states involved in the enforcement of sanctions in the gulf, the overwhelming majority are not involved in offensive action in the gulf. This is to say nothing of the literally scores of good upstanding members of the United Nations who are not even in the gulf enforcing sanctions. One thinks of Germany, for example.
So that argument is nonsense.
The second argument is that sanctions are not working, and this has two sub-arguments. The first: proof that sanctions are not working is that Hussein has not withdrawn, so obviously the sanctions are not working. That argument could have been made the day after the sanctions were imposed. You impose the sanctions, you wait a day and Hussein has not withdrawn. Therefore the sanctions do not work. That is the logic that we are being asked to eat here tonight. In fact, that logic holds right up until the day before the sanctions do work.
Setting that aside, it has been argued in this House that strategic goods are getting through and that Mr. Hussein's forces are being built up despite the sanctions. This argument has been made most forcefully by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He has refused to cite the sources on which he bases his argument, but let that pass for the time being.
Let us consider, not taking my word for it, the word of some fairly knowledgeable Americans, including the former secretary of defense and former CIA director James Schlesinger who, appearing before the U.S. Senate Armed Forces Committee on November 27, said, and I quote: "The embargo, backed up by a naval blockade, is the most successful ever achieved aside from time of war. Early on, it was officially estimated that it would require a year for the sanctions to work. It now appears to be working more rapidly than anticipated. In three months, civilian production in Iraq is estimated to have declined by some 40 per cent; oil exports are essentially nil; and export earnings have dropped correspondingly."
He says as well: "the probability that the economic sanctions will result in a satisfactory outcome is very high."
Or, if you don't like him, try Admiral William Crowe, the former chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, appearing before the same committee on November 28, said: "The embargo is biting heavily in my judgment. Given the standard of living Iraq is used to and the increasing sophistication of Iraqi society, it is dead wrong to say that Iraq is not being hurt. It is being damaged severely. That also, I believe, goes for the Iraqi military, which depends on outside support."
If that is not enough I have another quote from William Crowe: "I would argue that we should give sanctions a fair chance before we discard them. . . 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 estimation, be more than worth it."
Or, how about General David Jones, former chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, quoted before the same committee: "the risk is that the problems inherent in maintaining the offensive military option could create-", I am sorry, that is an argument I do not have time to make tonight. However, still quoting the same gentleman, General Jones: "its his industrial capacity", that is to say Hussein's, "the fact that he is losing $20 to $30 billion in hard currency per year, that he is not getting military supplies. It is the fundamentals of his country, as opposed to the food. And as his hard currency dries up, the smuggling will-you know the smugglers want hard currency." So, the sanctions were working before they were so heedlessly abandoned.
The last major argument that the government has is that we must go in because Kuwaitis are being wiped out and nothing we could do could be anywhere near as bad.
I quote from an article in today's Edmonton Journal. "Brothers pray for safety of parents still in Kuwait". I quote from the article:
Two brothers from Kuwait prayed for their parents' safety
Wednesday night, listening to the TV in horror as American
bombers attacked Iraq.
January 17, 1991

Said and Sadi Karaman left their parents, a brother, and a sister in Kuwait City when they came to Canada on student visas in January.
Although a letter two weeks ago indicated their parents were fine, repeated attempts to reach them on the phone Wednesday night failed.
"I just want my parents here," said Said, 21, his voice shuddering.
Although he was angry when the Iraqis invaded, the Kuwaiti people could have solved their own problem, Sadi said.
"(The attack) isn't going to liberate Kuwait. It's going to be war. The peaceful solution would have been better."
That is the only Kuwaiti I have seen directly quoted in my hometown newspaper.
The last argument the government may have used is that the Canadian people were behind this. But, they are not. They are opposed to it. In my riding I have had 36 phone calls; three favour war, 33 are against. I have had six letters; one was for, five were against, not counting the letter I read into the record the other night.
In conclusion, and I am sorry I have not been able to lay before the House all the evidence I had hoped to in these brief 10 minutes. I would just say that what Canada is embarked upon at this time is a terrible and tragic mistake. It was wrong two days ago. It was wrong yesterday. It is wrong today. We must withdraw from that war and we must do everything we can to bring that war to a halt as quickly as possibly we can.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, in congratulating the hon. member for Edmonton East for his very impressive speech, I would like to ask him to expand for a moment on his concluding remarks when he was pulling his argument together and tell the House and the people watching this debate whether, in his opinion, we would be in this terrible mess tonight if the sanctions would still be applied tonight in the Middle East.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Had the sanctions been allowed to continue to bite ever deeper-first into Saddam Hussein's national Iraqi economy, but more importantly, into his ability to maintain his warmaking capacity-there would have been no need for war.
The current director of the CIA, in testimony in the United States, two former chairmen of the CIA, two former directors of the American joint chiefs of staff, all
Government Orders
testifying before various congressional committees, said the sanctions would in all probability work. In fact, they were already working. For whatever reason, that considered and informed opinion was deemed wrong. I have yet to hear any opinion expressed in this House to the contrary to which I would lend anything close to the same credibility.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would tell us what kind of a serious situation we might face in a year if we were to give Saddam a year or perhaps two years in order to prepare his war machine, to continue to prepare for a battle which he seemed to be prepared to take on regardless of the consequences.
I am surprised to find a gentleman of that party at probably the only time in my life that I will hear him quoting such sources as the CIA and the joint chiefs of staff of the United States of America as his authorities to build his arguments. But, perhaps it occurs to the hon. member that things change, that the statements he was quoting earlier were subsequently proven incorrect. No, I do not suggest that the hon. member would ever listen to that kind of an argument.
Madam Speaker, there are members in this House, including members of the party of the member who just spoke, who say that this is not our war.
When is it our war? Is it when they move into Saudi Arabia? Is it when they move into Jordan? Is it when they try to move into Israel? When is it our war? When is it that the interests of Canada, of the United Nations and of world peace are not our interests?


Ross Harvey: I attempt, whenever I am mounting an argument, to cite the most credible sources I can find. That is how I attempt, logically, to examine a question.
I am sorry, but again I say I have heard nothing in this House that bears anywhere close to the credibility or indeed the fullness of the testimony of these gentlemen before the various American congressional committees. And, as to the question of what would happen in a year, I would just give him two brief quotes. One is from General David Jones, and I quote:
In the area of military hardware, we and our allies can repair and
replace our equipment as needed, while time works against the Iraqi
armed forces.

Government Orders
The current director of the CIA, William Webster, said in his testimony of December 5, and I quote:
At current rates of depletion, we estimate Iraq will have nearly
depleted its available foreign exchange reserves by next spring.
It is the foreign exchange reserves they use to buy the bootlegged, strategic material on the black market which the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs was talking about. If they do not have the foreign exchange, they do not have the means to make war.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I submit to this House that Saddam Hussein is an evil that has advanced so far the world could wait no longer to take decisive action.
I know all Canadians tonight are thinking of our Armed Forces, men and women who are certainly putting their lives at stake in defence of freedom and in defence of world order. Certainly this is not a case, as the opposition and a great many others would have us believe, of a war for oil only.
On August 2 of this past year Iraq brutally invaded Kuwait, deploying more than 150,000 soldiers, 1,200 tanks, and some 1,000 armoured vehicles. Swiftly capturing Kuwait City, Iraq began a systematic ravaging of Kuwait's resources and population.
In fact the independent human rights organization, Amnesty International, recently documented a long list of cases of torture, rape, brutality, and so on inflicted on the Kuwaiti people. Canada is part of the United Nations sanctioned alliance which has been sending a clear message to Saddam Hussein that acts of armed aggression are no longer tolerated by the international community.
Over a three-month period, the United Nations Security Council has adopted 12 resolutions with respect of the Iraqi aggression in Kuwait. The debate in the House of Commons that began on Tuesday is on a government motion reaffirming Canada's commitment to United Nations resolution 678. I support whole heartedly the motion. Canada, as a member of the United Nations sanctioned alliance, has sent a message to Saddam Hussein that it would use military force if Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait. As of last night, the United Nations coalition moved to make good on that pledge.
I strongly disagree with the Leader of the Loyal Opposition who indicated that at the first sign of military action Canada should withdraw from the gulf. With your friends you stand shoulder to shoulder, especially in hard
times, and I can assure the House that Canada is not a fair weather friend. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities in the Persian Gulf, many voices were raised saying that any military action in the gulf would be a United States action. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The force present in the gulf representing more than 30 nations is sanctioned by the 12 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and is backed by near unanimous support. The world is united in its condemnation of the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and the Iraqi aggression against the rule of international law.
Canada's role in the region and its support of resolution 678 are based solidly on our historical commitment to the United Nations as the preferred instrument for preserving international peace and security. Indeed, the actions of Canada and all nations currently in the Persian Gulf have been under the auspices of the United Nations. In terms of the military action that commenced January 16 under UN resolution 678, the charter of the United Nations clearly provides for the kind of action which has been taken in the region in the past. The United Nations was unable to undertake such measures because of the constraints of the cold war. The effect had been to prevent any direct intervention by the United Nations.
As it stands now, there is no contradiction between Canada's present role in the gulf and the peacekeeping roles we have undertaken in the past. Where Canadians are having a problem with Canada's present role is that Canadians are not used to sending ships, planes, and soldiers to areas where conflict threatens. We are used to our military forces putting on blue United Nations helmets and going to places where cease-fires had been declared and where we were enforcing a truce and not preventing a war.
However, just as the United Nations role is evolving in the post cold war period, so is Canada's role as a peacemaker. Interestingly enough, the idea of peacekeeping as Canadians have come to know was at one time new. When Lester B. Pearson designed the first United Nations force which helped to end the Suez crisis, there were many voices raised opposing what Canada was doing in that particular situation. Those same voices said that Suez was none of our business. The voices of doubt were wrong then, and they are most certainly wrong now. From the courage shown by most Canadians then a great United Nations tradition was
January 17, 1991

born and a long and honourable Canadian commitment was made to peacekeeping.
The crisis in the gulf is taking place in a new international climate brought about by the end of the cold war. The acquisition of territory by brute force has represented a dangerous behaviour for most of this century. Iraq's actions represented a fundamental challenge to the international community in an era where the end of the old superpower rivalries had opened the way for a more co-operative and harmonious approach to resolving international problems and protecting peace and security.
At the present juncture, Canada and the world community, working through the United Nations, have invested heavily in a collective international response to Iraq and with good reason, apart from forcing Saddam Hussein to comply with international law, the success of the current undertaking could serve as a model for future meaningful collective security actions.
The United Nations followed a balanced, carefully considered course of action and sought Iraq's unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait, preferably as a result of political and economic pressure. With the passing of the January 15 deadline, the United Nations sanctioned alliance took decisive action.
Those who still insist that the United Nations alliance should have waited for economic sanctions to work have their heads buried deeply in the sand. The bottom line is that Iraq had no intention of withdrawing of its own volition from Kuwait.
Canadians are by nature a peaceful people and beyond any doubt did not want to see a war in the Persian Gulf. The prospect of war in the gulf disturbs me deeply and personally, as I have three grandsons who are of military age: 18,19, and 22. Believe me, nothing would have been more welcome than a resolution of the crisis without conflict.
However, what has to be seriously considered is the fact that peace is not accidental. It must be constructed and maintained, and sometimes at a tremendous cost. The protection and maintenance of international law and order and the containment of a dangerous renegade
Government Orders
country are interests worth fighting for. What is happening in the gulf will work in the way its founders envisage.
Canada's role in international conflict has been one of creative diplomacy tied to the United Nations. Our most creative diplomacy has been in the building of international institutions founded on shared principles, on the rule of law, and on the creation of collective powers to respond when these principles were violated.
These are the achievements of our diplomacy that we must now defend. If we do otherwise, our diplomacy will have failed, not just in this current crisis but in what we have been doing for 45 years.
Some Canadians wish we were not in the Persian Gulf. We all share that sentiment. We wish Iraq had not invaded Kuwait, but responsible nations must deal with facts, not wishes. Regardless of how well intended, Canada is a responsible nation. The fact remains that the peace was not kept. Iraq did invade Kuwait. Canada, along with over 30 nations, is in the gulf to seek peace and defend order, just as we have done in the past.
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is a crucial test of the United Nations in the post cold war world. Anything less than full support for United Nations resolution 678 would betray over 40 years of hope for the United Nations charter and its collective security provisions. If we succeed in the gulf, the signal will be clearly sent for all to witness that war as an instrument of foreign policy will not work.
What is at stake in the Persian Gulf is not territory or oil, but the preservation of the rule of international law. For these reasons and more, I am supporting our government's motion reaffirming Canada's commitment to United Nations resolution 678.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, we all know where the question and comment come from, since we are in that period, when I say: Ask not what the country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. What we can do for our country tonight and in weeks to come is probably put aside our partisanship politics and speak as one voice in this House in support of our troops who are there.
I am pleased that all members who spoke from the three parties, as well the independent members, have

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
been doing that. If they did not verbalize it, I know it was in their hearts because I have spoken to them outside the House also.
The question is: How can we support our forces now? I am glad everyone is recognizing the danger that our troops are in and the importance of showing them that we are solidly behind them. However, there are other foot soldiers there who maybe we have forgotten. It reminded me of the foot soldiers when we were watching the TV in the lobby last night. A CBC reporter from a hotel in Baghdad was reporting, and all of a sudden the TV went blank. Immediately everyone was horrified that the hotel was bombed or struck and that this reporter's life may have been in danger. Thank God his life was not in danger.
Watching in the lobby today, similar incidents are happening. Reporters with gas masks on are reporting to us that 10 missiles landed in Israel. In our support of the troops let us not forget these other important foot soldiers who are there, men and women. If it were not for them, we would not know what is happening in the gulf today.
I want to ask a question of the hon. member, though. Has his government given any support to the media personnel who are over there reporting to us in this excellent manner?


Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, as far as support, I am not privy to what has been taking place over there. I certainly pay great tribute to the people in the media who have been giving us a very vivid and frightening picture of what took place last night, today and I guess tonight. If there is any need for support, there is no doubt that the government will do everything possible.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, I want to ask a question of a very respected colleague. I am sure he truly believes in what he said, but I will say that I vociferously disagree with he has said. That is certainly allowed.
I understand that this day is soon going to draw to a close, but I want to touch on the the issue of sanctions one more time and whether they would work, did not work, or could not work. My colleague from Edmonton gave more proof as to the plausibility of sanctions
working. Certainly the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested that undetected products were going through and therefore the sanctions were not working. This depends on reports from an ambassador from Asia. It did not cite the country, nor did the minister.
Sanctions are working no matter what anybody says. The government said that it is time to end the sanctions and that one of its reasons is that with sanctions Saddam Hussein would take the food from the children and give it to the soldiers. I guess our response to that is: let's bomb the heck out of them, let's just bomb them and continue to bomb. Is that the solution to the problem?
Given the choice, most people would prefer hunger to death. Once again, I ask the member, as we have asked so many people: What was wrong with sanctions? What was wrong with giving them the appropriate time, whatever that time might be?


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, sanctions do work but they do not work very fast. In this particular case, there have been months in which sanctions have been applied, in which every opportunity was given to Saddam Hussein and his government, although he is really a one-man government and a real dictator. Apparently he felt that the coalition of the United Nations was bluffing. Every action was taken.
What is Canada going to do? Canada has made a modest contribution of 2,200 personnel, give or take, none of whom are ground troops. Our navy and our air force are there to protect and to assist.
I would point out to hon. members and to that saintly group in the comer, who seems to think that it has a corner on all morality, that a great many other countries are supporting the position Canada has taken. Canada has 2,200 troops at stake there. The United States has probably a half a million. Even the opposition in Great Britain, the Hon. Neil Kinnock has supported the present situation of using force. Australia, another Labour government, socialist government, has us supported it whole-heartedly. But the saintly NDP would have us withdraw our troops and sit back like cowards, and then, when the war is all over, we would get up and wave the Canadian flag and say: "Now we are able to help you. Wipe the blood and sweat of your face", and so on.
January 17, 1991


Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak to the people of Canada and to the residents of the riding of Saint-Maurice.
First, allow me to offer my best wishes and congratulations to the new Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Beausejour, who was recently elected to the House of Commons. As you know, he represented my riding for 23 years. He is a close friend whom I have known for 20-odd years, and I want to offer him my best wishes on his return to the House of Commons.
Madam Speaker, I know that in your capacity as member for Saint-Hyacinthe you too would like to express your heart felt sentiments about the war that has broken out in the Middle East. I know you would be able to reach deep into our hearts by your humanitarian observations. Knowing you as we do, we are also convinced that without political partisanship you would be in a position to tell the House how important it is that international order be maintained.
That being so, Madam Speaker, I should like to point out two things. This House is made up of three parties and a few independent members who have already expressed their views. Some of our colleagues took a partisan approach, others were more generous in their remarks.
However, my father taught me that great occasions in life enable us to differentiate men from children. All partisanship aside, Madam Speaker, I became aware of that after the appeal of the Prime Minister as I watched the behaviour of the three main parties. The Canadian public has been able to see how the government, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party behaved.
They found that the members of the Liberal Party of Canada who make up the Official Opposition were able to a certain extent to rise above partisan politics. Through their leader, they said that what really mattered, under these very serious circumstances, was Canada's reputation.
In this respect, even if I do not usually share the views of the Official Opposition, I must recognize that the
Government Orders
members of the Liberal Party were able to show restraint.
I wish I could say the same thing about my socialists colleagues of the New Democratic Party. Unfortunately, again, they decided as usual to criticize the government's position. They proved to be unable to show common sense and to recognize that Canada's national interest transcended partisan considerations. Such was the behaviour of the New Democratic Party of Canada today. That, Madam Speaker, is the kind of medicine the citizens of Canada must sooner or later evaluate in relation to this whole matter of concern to them.
I would like to state briefly some of the feelings I experienced last August when I had the opportunity and the pleasure to travel to the Middle East with the hon. member for Western Arctic. On that occasion, we visited Israel, Palestine and Egypt at the very moment when Saddam Hussein was threatening Kuwait with possible sanctions. We went through some extremely difficult situations in that country.
One thing I learned, Madam Speaker, is that it is very difficult to separate the good from the bad. We met with Israelis and Palestinians, two peoples living in the same country but with very different objectives. They each had their own reason for wanting to live peacefully in the Middle East. Some will consider the Israeli as the good guys and the Palestinians as the bad guys. Others will do the exact opposite. But the truth is probably not that simple. What we are going through tonight seems even more complex, when we realize Israel did not reply to the first attacks againt its state.
Madam Speaker, for more than 40 years, experts have been predicting this war. For over 40 years, throughout the world, experts have said that some day the situation in the Middle East will get extremely explosive. This crucial time has come. And in this crucial crisis, Madam Speaker, our government and our people are left with but one option. We have the option of regrouping around our common denominator, the United Nations.
The United Nations have in their history gone through extremely difficult periods. However, they assured Palestinians in occupied territories minimal living conditions at a time when they were in a most difficult situation.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
The United Nations Agency for Palestinian Refugees is largely financed by the Government of Canada which is one of the largest contributors of the United Nations for Palestinians.
I think our government, in the last few years, was able to show flexibility. We are friends of Israel, of course, but we are also capable of compassion towards Palestinians.
Today, in spite of Canada's diplomatic action, in spite of the tens of millions of dollars we spent trying to insure peace in the Middle East, in spite of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the late Lester B. Pearson, in spite of all our efforts over decades, Madam Speaker, we have come to a point of no return. Saddam Hussein is putting us in a position where we cannot go back. Canada, America, the United Nations and the world have no choice. We have no choice in the matter and I think the position taken by our government and the one of the Liberal Party-and I will close my comments on that-is that of reason in supporting our troops and our government. I think that the New Democrats should, in all conscience, review their position, which is too partisan and, for now, totally out of synch.
Madam Speaker, I know my time is up. I thank you very much.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I give the floor to the government House Leader, for a point of order.


Some hon. members:: Questions and comments.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton-East will certainly wish to tell me what to do, but I recognized the government House leader on a point of order, which has precedence over questions and comments. The hon. House leader has the floor.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, as the House is aware, earlier this evening Iraq initiated an attack against Israel, a country that is not part of the coalition that is acting in concert to get Hussein out of Kuwait.
As a result of that heinous act, the opinions and sympathies of the Government of Canada have been made known to the Government of Israel. The Prime Minister had hoped and expected that he would have sufficient information about the events to come to the
House and report on the circumstances. As it is, the information is rather fragmentary. It is still incomplete and, for that reason, he is unable to come this evening.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, in view of the circumstances and the fact that the debate we are now having keeps changing in its parameters, hour by hour, minute by minute, I was going to suggest that, after discussions with the House leaders of hon. members, perhaps there might be a mood to suspend the sitting, as we did last night, and to return tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
That was the purpose, simply to inform, because some people had expected the Prime Minister to be here. He would have been here but, for the reasons I have just given, he was unable to do so. I rise on a point of order for the purposes of making that suggestion, for which there has been discussions among House leaders and on which I understood there was some agreement.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House share the distress of Canadians and I take the proposition of the government seriously.
We accept the fact that the Prime Minister will be here tomorrow morning to answer questions. We also accept the fact that we should maybe go back home and reflect on this very serious situation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, we, too, recognize the horror which has occurred this evening and, in light of the changing situation and the unfortunate situation now, the escalation in hostilities, I think it is only appropriate that, until adequate information is made available, that we suspend until 10 o'clock. Presumably, we would then resume the debate at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I would like more information about the proposal. Are we going to carry on with the debate on the same subject tomorrow at 10 o'clock? If so, I agree; otherwise, I refuse my consent. Could the Government leader answer this question?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, it would be my intention to proceed under the existing Order tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, which would mean the same question.

Government Orders


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I rise because I feel that we are going to go through. Many would like to leave now, maybe tomorrow.
In all humility and as kindly as I can, I say to the House leader that next time that he wants to make a statement, it will only confuse and make life more difficult in the House. Just come and say so.
We are not fools. We will accept your making a statement. We know what is going on. But I do not think that using a point of order to make a statement is the right way.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: Well, you do what you want, but you may need a lot of agreement. I say, kindly, to all of you, you may need a helluva lot more agreement than you think to terminate or to continue the debate. That is not the way to proceed.
You may disagree. Instead of saying, "come on," just listen. You may say, "I disagree," and that is it. I do not understand this kind of putting off any members with whom you disagree.
It is a tough enough time just to have an orderly debate, and I feel it get more and more difficult. That is all I am trying to put to the House.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The honorable member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, the Government leader said: "it would be my intention". I want more than his intention, I want a certainty.


Harvie Andre: In view of the hour and so on, I have given my assurance to the House. As is customary in this House, we accept each other's assurances.
As I said before-and I should not have to repeat this, the hon. member should accept my word-we will return to this existing order of the House tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I think that these lessons of morality are out of place tonight.

If the House leader wants to play smart ass, he will not get anything.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I may be able to help the House and we would not need to end this evening with words that some of us may regret later.
The Government House Leader came to the House, in the normal way and as it has been done in the House forever. When that type of an announcement has had to be made, it was done by making a point of order.

It is really on a point of order that the Hon. minister came to the House. He called the attention of the Speaker in order to communicate these details to the House and then to move a motion. So, I do not believe that that was unusual.
The motion, as moved by the minister, asks that the sitting of the House be suspended tonight. That means that, tomorrow, we would simply pursue the same business. I think that I have perhaps clarified the situation for some members who feared a change in the order tomorrow morning.
In these circumstances, is there unanimous consent for the House to suspend its sitting now until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning?


Alex Kindy: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast on a point of order.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure yet that we will resume this debate tomorrow. I would like the leader of the government to confirm that tomorrow morning we will be debating the same subject.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Madam Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member for Calgary Northeast would care to wait and listen, I will try to reassure him. The sitting is not adjourned, it is suspended. Consequently, tomorrow's business will be a continuation of today's business. Is there unanimous consent to suspend the sitting?

January 17, 1991
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.	At 10.23 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since there is unanimous consent, the sitting of the House is suspended until 10 a.m. [Editor's Note: For continuation of proceedings see Vol-tomorrow.	ume B.)

Thursday, January 17,1991
[Editor's Note: Continuation of proceedings from Volume A.]


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 10 a.m. on January 18, 1991.
Mr. Speaker:: So that hon. members are clear as to where we are this morning, the sitting was suspended last night. We are carrying on with the sitting and will resume debate.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, as you have just indicated, technically it is still yesterday. We want to assure the House that it is not our intention to interfere with Question Period and to allow members' statements. I believe there would be unanimous consent for the following motion:
That notwithstanding the order made Wednesday, January 16, 1991, Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31 be called this day at 11 a.m., followed by Oral Questions at 11.15 a.m., followed by resumption of debate on government business No. 27 at noon.


Mr. Speaker:: Before hearing the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, may I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary what has been the arrangement with respect to Routine Proceedings.


Albert Glen Cooper: I think at this point that we could probably proceed without Routine Proceedings, but if it is the wish of the Official Opposition or others to have Routine Proceedings, we would not have a problem with that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, you anticipated my question. I think we would agree to treat today as an ordinary day in terms of procedure. At eleven o'clock we would go to Statements by Members with the usual Question Period followed by the Routine Proceedings of the House and then resume whatever order is called.
In the motion put by the parliamentary secretary, the last few words are that the Question Period would be
"followed by resumption of debate on Government Business No. 27 at noon". That was not part of our negotiations, Mr. Speaker, but if it is part of the motion, then I guess we will have to have further consultations at this time.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as being one of the others, as the parliamentary secretary referred to us, first of all I want to acknowledge that this Question Period and opportunity to present statements is the result of some generosity on all sides. I want to say on behalf of the New Democrats we appreciate the generosity that made this possible.
We support the notion of having Routine Proceedings immediately following Question Period, as we would normally do on a Friday. That is probably appropriate in light of the issues before us. Perhaps further negotiations can take place as to what transpires later on in the day.
We support this proposal enthusiastically, Mr. Speaker, and I simply want to acknowledge to my colleagues our appreciation of their support for continuing with Question Period today.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary might clarify whether it was implicit in his comments and his motion that Private Member's Business will not be heard this afternoon. I hasten to say I have a private member's bill which I think would involve some leadership by all the MPs to do something about our obscene pension plan. I would like to know whether his motion implies that private members' bills will be swept away too.
Mr. Coopen Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with the words used by the hon. member, to wipe out Private Members' Business. Technically, as much as my watch shows that it is Friday, the table clock tells me it is Thursday. It has been a long week and I could believe either one of them. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is trying to make an exception to the order to cover both Members' Statements and Question Period.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
To meet the concerns of the House leader for the Official Opposition, we would be prepared to remove the last sentence from the motion which says, "that followed by resumption of debate on Government Business No. 27 at noon". I do not have a problem with that particular sentence.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, again the member from Edmonton anticipated what I was going to ask. I think that if the government removed the last few words of the motion, it could possibly accommodate the member from Edmonton. I said "could" possibly accommodate the member from Edmonton.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we get into a great debate on that, let me, as I understand it, make clear what the procedure is. No matter what the calendar may show, we are still on Thursday and, as a consequence, unless the House wants to do something about it, we would proceed today as if it were Thursday. That ends the issue with respect to the hon. member for Edmonton East, no matter how important his bill may be.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking clarification. There were suggestions that we delete some phrases; I am not certain which phrases, before we are asked for our consent for this motion. Could I have a clarification from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader? What exactly is the wording of the motion we now have before us, for which there is a request for consent?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to be really clear. The intention of this motion is to allow the House and the members of the House to have the normal members' statements, which would take place on a Friday, and also the normal Question Period which would take place on a Friday. I can read the motion again, as it would be now, having removed the last sentence.
That, notwithstanding the order made Wednesday, January 16, 1991, Statements by Members Pursuant to Standing Order 31 be called this day at 11 o'clock a.m., followed by Oral Questions at 11.15 o'clock a.m.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for taking the time of the House but, since this is the first time I have seen this sheet and the first time I have had this discussion, I want to be clear what we are agreeing to.
I want to ask the parliamentary secretary a question. Does this mean that we will cease discussion on the motion, prior to Question Period, that the House will then be suspended and we will resume on Monday? I am not clear as to what we are saying, in terms of the future of this debate.
Mr. Coopen Mr. Speaker, I am finding myself drawn into a rather interesting bit of negotiations and discussions here. I want to be very clear. As the situation is right now, if we do not agree to this motion, then we will continue with Motion No. 27 which would be uninterrupted until that debate collapses.
What I am suggesting to the House in making this offer is that we would interrupt debate to have members' statements and Question Period and then, at that point, we resume Government Orders and we have the traditional opportunity for the government to call whatever at that point. I say that simply because I would like to be in a position to not have the negotiations on the floor but to talk to any and all members, when we proceed at this point. I am not trying to restrict members. I think that Question Period has always been important to members of Parliament, on all sides of the House, and we do not want to take that away from members today.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I believe that the wisdom that went into the drafting of this motion earlier was great and that the wording that is before us ought to be the wording that we now agree to. This provides us with a flexibility but, at this moment, I cannot agree to a motion that could end the debate on this critical issue.
I am willing to negotiate, as we always are, around the clock to try to facilitate the business of this House in a meaningful way and I would suggest that he seek unanimous consent for the motion that is in writing before us now.


David Kilgour: There seem to be some misunderstandings. I think it would be better if we had the the next speaker. Then we could perhaps negotiate involving all of the parties, including the independent members, and come up with something we can all give unanimous consent to.


Mr. Speaker:: There has been a certain amount of anticipation of other people's helpful interventions already this morning. I might say the hon. member has anticipated the remark that I am about to make, which is a suggestion that we proceed with debate. We have an hon. member seeking the floor. It seems to me that hon. members may be veiy close to a resolution of this.

In view of the fact that there is not actually consent at the moment for the motion, I would propose to proceed with debate.
I am sure the parliamentary secretary, the House Leaders, and other members could have a discussion and they might be able to indicate to me at some appropriate point in a little while what has been agreed to.


Marcel Prud'homme: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The last speaker last night was the the hon. member for Saint-Maurice. He had just finished his speech and we were just about to enter questions and comments. Even if he is temporarily absent, I had indicated I wanted to make a comment or two on the graciousness of his speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker, who was here last night, has just reminded me that there were two or three minutes remaining.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some sympathy with the hon. member's request. I think that hon. members will remember that it has been customary in such cases when there is a break in the proceedings and at the recommencement of the proceedings, if the hon. member is not here, then we have to proceed to the next hon. member.
If it is any comfort to the hon. member for Saint-Denis, he has indicated what he would have like to have said. Perhaps there will be another occasion or another place where he can speak.


Marcel Prud'homme: I have no questions for him. It is just a comment.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that, but the hon. member is not here. He is no doubt on other business.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, last night I was about to speak when the House adjourned and this morning I was about to speak when we were interrupted by House procedure discussions. I feel as if I have been called back to the starting gate for the third time.
Government Orders
This has been a very emotional debate in the House. I appreciate those speakers who have stated that there should not be any politics involved in this issue and that we should be hitting the high road in this debate.
As I listened to the hon. member for Parry Sound- Muskoka last night, who is my neighbour geographically, I could not help but feel that our listening audience and our ratings last night would be considerably low because for the first time in history people are watching an actual war unfold. It is quite a change in modem technology.
My regret is that this debate did not take place last week. We were brought back here a week too late. A serious debate took place in the United States Congress a number of days ago and it voted last week. That is what we should have done. Nevertheless, we did not do it.
People wonder why there should be different points of views on this entire issue. We should not be surprised that there are because in the United States Senate the vote was very narrow: 52 to 47. Yet, when it was over, they joined forces to support their military community and those who are working to bring about a settlement of the Middle East situation.
There has been a great debate on this issue as to whether or not sanctions worked. I have a list here of the ways the sanctions were working. Others say they were not working. Others say there were extenuating circumstances that required the bringing about of the war at an early stage. However, that is all passe now. The event is upon us.
With regard to diplomacy, how can you practise diplomacy when you have a dictator who does not want to give in on anything? Therefore, the only thing we really had a hope of practising was the sanctions. As the war goes on and as the tyrannical dictatorship in that country finally realizes that it cannot continue, that is when you will get diplomacy.
We have had a long debate in the House, but I am sure that everybody, to the last individual, will support our forces in their efforts to bring about a settlement to this issue.
In speaking about our forces today and for the past number of days, the second field hospital unit, which is located on Base Petawawa just three miles from my home, has been getting ready to go to the Persian Gulf. I

Government Orders
understand from reports there will be possibly over 500 people who will go with it from all across Canada. We in the House want to say to them that we wish them well. We are proud of the way they are serving Canada, and we are proud of the way our Canadian forces always exercise three key points.
There is their ability as military personnel. The idea some people may have is that as soon as "military" is mentioned, that everybody is agressive. That is not the case. Our military is a professional community.
The forces are very good at diplomacy as well, and they have proven that time and time again in their United Nations work.
The third parameter is rather an odd one to attribute to people wearing the Canadian forces uniform, but it is true to a degree. That is, they are politicians too, because they have to work with people from other countries and they have to work to settle problems that face them from day to day, and month to month, individually. They have to provide advice to the civilian leadership of this country and they do it very well.
We have ships in the Middle East and have had them there for some time. We have 24 CF-18s there and a large number of ground support. To those people, we extend our appreciation for what they are doing. There is a lot of warmth in Canada for the service people who are over there now and certainly for those who will go hereafter.
Before the break at Christmas, I visited the town of Amprior and associated my remarks and support with a group that was sending Christmas packages to the entire crew of a ship. There are people as well who are organizing other events of communicating with our forces who are over there. I hope that will go on and I would encourage Canadians right across this nation to do that sort of thing. Get the names of people over there and send them letters and gifts of various kinds from time to time. It is very important to their morale.
This is a serious and a solemn issue and must be treated as such. We in the House must continue to take a very high road in that regard.
What we are witnessing today in the Persian Gulf is a high tech war of the kind that has never taken place before in world history. We are going to see more of this unfold in the days ahead.
As I was preparing this talk, I could not help but let my feelings wander back to the days when I was very active with the NATO parliamentary group here. I still am, but at that time I was leading the parliamentary group to international conferences with the 16 NATO countries. That was a tremendous experience because it taught me how to understand the culture of other nations, their political systems, the special things that affected them in relation to their economy, and, of course, their customs.
If we are going to be effective in the international community, the first thing that we must know is something about the other person's way of life. That is the bridge that we need in international affairs.
As I prepared this speech, I could not help but think of the tremendous amount of high tech military equipment that has been developed by precision science over a number of years that is in the NATO alliance and also situated within the Warsaw Pact. Nothing has had a greater impact on world history than the sudden collapse of the communist states in eastern Europe. It has brought about a relaxation of those horrendous groups, one facing the other in Europe. As we see this high tech unfolding today, can we imagine what we have been delivered from if a war had broken out between the NATO Alliance and the Warsaw Pact? It would have been devastating on world society.
I could not help but think of that great biblical verse that "God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform". I think that He has delivered us from that catastrophe.
Now, today, having been given the gifts to think, to work constructively, to work with other people on the face of this earth, we must bring forth our greatest qualities and our best efforts to improve the United Nations organization. We must put it in place as a very effective world referee-negotiator, diplomat, and the organization that will continue to support human rights, international boundaries, and international protocol.
This ongoing international issue in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East is one that has consumed every member of the House and, indeed, all Canadians. There are many times in the affairs of the human race when
January 17, 1991

peace does not come easily. I do not say this in a way that I mean to be insensitive nor, in any way, would I say it in order to create fear, because we do not need that at this time.
I had the honour and the privilege to travel to Dieppe for the anniversary of the Battle of Dieppe with the Hon. George Hees and a delegation from this Parliament. I believe it was in August 1987. The way that generals in those days ordered those young people to go into Dieppe in that raid was an inhuman act.
The veterans who were back there at that time were remembering that day and how real it was to them. The question mark is still on military minds as well as on everybody else's minds as to whether that raid should have even been ordered.
As one sees the markers of those young people, 18, 19, 20 and 21 years of age, it brings one back home with the sincere and deep feeling that we who hold the responsibility of public office, backed up by those well meaning people across our country, should be doing everything we possibly can to bring about effective diplomacy in this world. That is one of the most important things that this nation can practise. We must work with others to put even more teeth into the United Nations.
As I outlined, the high-tech military materiel is in place today, and will be in place in the future to a greater degree, and nothing is going to be more important to the human race than to have sensible people who can bring about a world policeman who is effective and who can settle disputes. Indeed, when force is necessary in the end, they must be prepared to support that too, as a world police organization.
We visited Normandy and Holland. Think of the impression that we can have on the world as a Canadian nation. On one of our NATO visits we had a Remembrance Day ceremony, even though it was not Remembrance Day, at a major cemetery in Holland. It was out in the country near a number of beautiful trees. As we looked down those rows of markers from the cenotaph where our ceremony was taking place, we saw coming in from the fields of the community the Dutch farmers in their farm clothing, with their hats in their hands. They stood around the cenotaph with us as we performed our wreath-laying ceremony and said our prayers.
Government Orders
Those are the things that have a great impact on an individual. Again, they send you home with the idea that you must try to be a better and more constructive person in the politics of your nation.
We have some great people in this House, on both sides. I wish this debate had taken place a week earlier, because it is now almost redundant, with the exception of the following through and the questioning of what is going on from day to day.
Let us make up our minds today, as we have in the past, to move forward in a constructive and effective way to be ready to practice diplomacy when the moment is right. Even now, we must look forward to the day when this war is over so that Canada will be in the forefront in an attempt to tone down and settle some of these horrendous problems in the Middle East that have been going on for 5,000 years. That is going to be a major role for this nation.
In the Korean conflict we joined with the other UN forces under the United Nations flag. That event was a success. In the Suez crisis we went in again under the United Nations flag. That proposal was brought about by that outstanding Canadian, Lester B. Pearson.
Lester B. Pearson was Prime Minister when I entered the House. He was a personal friend of mine. I had great admiration for him, and to me he was almost like a grandfather. He had a great effect on my thinking as a young parliamentarian. I have never forgotten many of the things that he said because he was a man of great common sense. Indeed, it was he and the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent who can be credited with a major input into the founding of the United Nations organization in San Francisco on October 24, 1945.
We have to build on what they started. Indeed, it has been a tremendous achievement for Canadian statesmanship. That must go on and we must be prepared to tackle these issues seriously. Today, it is Iraq. Tomorrow, it will be someone else. The machinery must be in place, both from the human point of view and from an enforcement point of view, to settle those problems.
The United Nations was brought in with the idea of building a new world order. The respect for international boundaries became paramount and is still paramount today. That is what this present war is all about, that and economics. So, we must remain strong to the principles

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
of international order, respect for international boundaries and international protocol in the years to come.
Last night we saw the attack on Israel. It is madness, yes, but it is part of the failure of the human race. You cannot negotiate with a tyrant, but you can do everything possible to maintain international law.
I mentioned the other battles in world history where the UN flag was used to cover the entire forces which went into battle. I sincerely hoped that this present war could have been carried out under the United Nations flag. As it is, each nation is there under its own flag. In future, in order to strengthen the image and effectiveness of the United Nations, we should have these international conflicts under the command of the UN.
We can still have generals. We will have key people in place, but it will be an international order emanating from a unified group of nations under the UN. It will have to be a commitment on the part of all members of the United Nations, and their expertise and their input will have to be used to settle international problems.
I want to end with one very realistic saying. Tied up in the improvement and the sponsorship of UN forces in the future is the saying that I have heard on many occasions: "Wars are started by old men and fought by boys." Today, wars are fought by both boys and girls.
As we debate this issue of the war that is presently going on, let us look beyond the horizons and fully prepare ourselves for the challenges in the future. There will always be someone looking for world power. There will always be someone greedy. So, let us commit ourselves to improving the United Nations and international order in the world in the years to come as well as now.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I have a question for my very good friend who has many years of experience here. I listened to his speech with interest, particularly to that part about the United Nations and the honour Mr. Pearson brought to Canada with his participation in peacekeeping.
The purpose of my question is to try to clarify some of the confusion I see in this very serious issue in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Is it the hon. member's position that, if the allies were there under the formal blue flag of the United Nations then some of the disagreement in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition about the motion of the government would disappear and thus there would be more of its members in favour of the government motion?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, when I mentioned the governments, I did not put a Liberal label on them when I was talking about the United Nations and the input into it. I was trying to be broad and a bit statesman-like on these very important issues.
It was a Liberal government that committed forces to Korea under the United Nations. It was a Liberal government that asked that the Suez crisis be settled with the use of a United Nations force. I, and I am sure many others, would feel much more comfortable if this event were carried out under the United Nations flag. Having played a major role in the founding of the United Nations, if we do not support that organization and its flag over the years in these world controversies, then we are letting down those great statesmen before us.
I stated very clearly in my speech that in future contests I would prefer to see all forces under the United Nations' flag. We can still use the great expertise from those many nations to handle the UN force.
The hon. member was a classmate of mine. We came into the House together and he is very sensitive to this issue as well. He is very close to some of those great issues.
Canadian work within the international community over the years has been very important and it is important that we continue to support the UN flag. I would say to my hon. friend that it is not just a symbol I am talking about here. The message I am really trying to get across is that when we go into an international conflict without being under the United Nations flag, while our operations can still be very effective it tends to weaken the image of the United Nations organization in the eyes of the world. Our main aim under the United Nations is to

pull all nations and people of the world together to settle these conflicts.
We all know that half of the problem in settling disputes is that people will not talk to one another. However, if we have them in a major organization, then they will have to talk to one another and many of these disputes would not arise in the first place.
I am convinced that every party in the House should be aiming toward supporting the UN flag because that is the international organization we want to see handling all these great issues in the years to come.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, my colleague has been in the House of Commons for a long time. As a result of this experience, I wonder if he would give me his comments and reactions to the following.
It seems to me that few people talk realistically about the casualties of war, how many people die, and how they die. For example, the Pentagon often refers to war with words such as outcomes and scenarios. I would like to compare that with recent remarks by Brigadier Patrick Cordingley, commander in chief of Britain's seventh division who said, while referring to this particular conflict:
It is going to be the sort of warfare people never realized, or could
have expected. The public is not prepared for what is about to
happen. And we have got to prepare the-public for a particularly
unpleasant war. They should be told there will be a lot of casualties.
I am assuming that he is talking not only about soldiers, our own and Iraq's, but as well about children, seniors, and many other people who will be the victims and casualties not only in terms of death but in terms of injuries.
A final quote from Admiral Gene Larocque of Washington's Centre for Defence Information, a military think-tank which opposes the gulf war. He has estimated that there will be several thousands of casualties for the Americans and the allies, but that the over-all casualties will probably exceed one-quarter of a million.
I am wondering if my hon. colleague would give me his reaction to those comments.
Government Orders


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question and those are excellent comments, because they fit right into the main thrust of my speech.
I said that what we are watching today is high-tech warfare. I mentioned what an horrendous calamity it would be for the human race if the war in Europe between the communist east and the free west had broken out because of all the high-tech equipment positioned within both of those camps over the years.
There is no question but that the person he quoted from the Pentagon was right on, because with the great destructiveness of high-tech equipment today tens of thousands of people can be killed in very short order. I do not think the nation has come to realize that the precise bombing going on with high-tech equipment, for example against Iraq today, is being done in order to try not to have great casualties in the civilian population. But that is not very much comfort. It is just lessening the problem a bit.
If there were some World War I veterans listening to my hon. colleague's question today and my remarks, they would probably say to us: "World War I and World War n were no picnics either". We cannot downplay that statement because the trench warfare in World War I was a disaster. We had people coming home who had been gassed. They had lung problems and physical problems the rest of their lives, lost limbs, and so on.
War is hell, no matter what generation it is in and no matter what kind of equipment is used. Today, we have equipment that can really destroy a whole nation and indeed the world. This is why I am saying what I am thinking today and that is why that I have changed the thrust of my debate.
I have tried to bring a different perspective to it by saying that it is time all free nations and responsible nations of the world get with it and decide that they are going to support a very strong United Nations organization, and that organization must be prepared at all times to police international problems and to negotiate international problems.
Yes, at some stage down the road force may become necessary in any event, but at least the best we can do as human beings is try to lessen the problems. No matter how hard we work to bring about a world order, we are not going to get perfection. But, if we do not try, we will not even come close to it.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
I thank the hon. member for that very important question because it really ties in with the great destructive forces available to mankind today in a war.
If ever there were a time in the world history that we need sanity among people, responsible leadership within our nations, responsible members of Parliament who are willing to stand up and be counted on the issue of enforcing international law through the United Nations and to support the UN and indeed reform the UN, if we can make it a better body, than it is now. We must be looking at that as well.
That is why I emphasize the importance of Canada being at the forefront and centre in any conferences or meetings that take place to try to lessen the problems in the Middle East and bring about some solutions. We are not going to be perfect at that either, because other people have not been perfect for 5,000 years, but at least we can improve the situation. The important thing is that we all act like responsible individuals, bring world order back, and be prepared to settle these issues in the future.
Finally, the underlying factor is that under the UN flag the nations of the world must commit themselves to the United Nations and add strong support to bring about future peace in the world. If we do not have peace, if we are going to stand alone out there, we all are going to go down together if we do not act responsibly from this day on with high-tech warfare.


Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, when I stand today to talk about the motion before this House, I find it very difficult. Obviously the situation has changed tremendously from when this motion was first brought forward.
I know everyone in this House and in this country wants us as members of Parliament to do everything possible to bring peace to the world. Really, that is what we are talking about today and that is what we have been talking about for the last few days: to bring about an international order which will bring peace to this world. When we talk about this motion, we are talking about bringing peace to the world.
We must recognize that it was almost six months ago that Iraq breached the international peace agreement by invading Kuwait in an unqualified and unprovoked act of
aggression. That was when the war began. That was last August 2.
The UN Security Council, the international group of nations empowered to maintain law and order in the world, passed a resolution at that time condemning Iraq, demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait and that both sides negotiate. That was the initial reaction. That was back on August 2. Iraq did not comply. We are all aware of that today.
That was followed by economic sanctions and the authority given to the allied forces and member nations to enforce those sanctions. I for one was a firm believer that those sanctions were going to work. I think everyone in this House believed those sanctions were going to work.
However, most of us recognize the ineffectiveness of those sanctions, the fact that those sanctions were hurting the civilians. They were hurting many people, but effectively they were not doing anything to the military powers within Iraq.
As we have gone along in this course of events, many resolutions have been put forward by the United Nations. In fact there have been 12 in all. They relate to the unacceptable breach of the UN, the holding of foreign nationals, Iraq's liability under the fourth Geneva convention as it relates to war crimes, altering the sovereign position of Kuwait, and destroying Kuwait's records. Those are atrocities that the international peacekeeping organization and the world cannot tolerate.
Canada has been very involved in those resolutions and those attempts to bring peace to the world.
Mr. Coopen I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding the Order made Wednesday, January 16,
1991, Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31 be
called this day at 11 o'clock a.m., followed by Oral Questions at
11.15 o'clock a.m. until 12 o'clock noon.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could there be a decision whether we resume debate after Question Period?


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that immediately following Question Period at twelve o'clock noon we will be returning to Motion No. 27, the one presently before the House.
January 17, 1991


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I understand there is unanimous consent for the parliamentary secretary to move the motion, and I understand that there is consent to approve the motion. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Cole: Madam Speaker, I think Canada as a countiy has been very involved in this process of negotiation, debate and attempt to resolve this problem peacefully. Canada was a co-sponsor and co-draftee of virtually all those motions. Canada has played a very responsible role as a member of the UN.
The UN agreed by resolution 678 to allow Iraq one final opportunity, a time frame when Iraq would not be attacked. As a gesture of goodwill by the international community, Iraq was allowed seven more weeks to comply with that August 2 resolution to withdraw from Kuwait.
The UN as the keeper of law and order in the world was forced to respond. Canada is a member of the UN, in fact a founding member, as has been mentioned quite often in this House recently. Yet, as much as we dislike the actions that will have to be taken-in fact I do not think it is too strong to say that we hate the actions taken-we have an obligation to maintain law and order in the world.
Force is not something that is taken lightly, nor can it be offered in a way that it implies an empty threat. I think that is one thing we must recognize. It is a last resort. I feel we have explored all the options possible to us. When we look at the events which have taken place over the last days, weeks, and months; when peaceful negotiations were taking place; when discussions were taking place to try to resolve this situation; when leaders of nations on an individual basis and even collectively, and even Secretary-General of the United Nations, Javier Perez de Cuellar, said there was no reason to have any real hope, Iraq had never mentioned it was prepared to withdraw from Kuwait.
There are questions that we as Canadians must ask ourselves. What course is right for Canada in the cause for peace? Will Canada stand and be counted? Will we continue to support the international coalition, or will
we stand aside and hope that others uphold the rule of law?
Collective security is what this crisis is all about. It is important to be clear that it is not about the defence of democracy. It is not about oil, nor is it about supporting Washington. The principle at issue is simple and straightforward. Collective security and the defence and construction of an international order where aggression is rejected are what this principle is about and what the United Nations resolutions are all about.
Canada does not have a policy of war.
Canada has a policy of peace. Our policy has been designed to achieve a peaceful solution to the international crisis. If we check the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs of the other day, which stated all the things that have been offered and all the attempts that have been made, there is only one person who can realistically offer peace to the world today. That man is Saddam Hussein.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member. He can continue when debate resumes.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of an overwhelming number of my constituents who support the government's action in the Persian Gulf and to say how proud they are of our armed forces personnel who are involved.
What concerns me is that the member for Okanagan- Shuswap, who has often criticized us for not listening to the majority of our constituents, is toeing his party line and is not supporting the United Nations action.
In a poll done in his constituency yesterday by radio station CJIB, when asked the question: "Are you in favour of UN action", 390 people said yes and 43 said no. That is 90 per cent in favour. When is the member going to listen to the overwhelming majority of his constituents?

January 17, 1991


APPEAL FOR PEACE
Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, as this made-for-TV war unfolds, the still, small voice for peace becomes harder and harder to hear amid the din of guns and planes.
During the first few days of conflict, it has not been the voice of Saddam Hussein that has been silenced, but the voices of an unknown number of innocent men, women and children.
Therefore, I would like to read from a letter sent to our Prime Minister by the Mennonite Central Committee on January 11.
"If now, in the hope filled post-cold war era, non-military methods are abandoned so readily, then the prospects for resolving other disputes by peaceful means are greatly diminished, allowing militarism to continue with its exploitive, destructive and death-dealing effects".
These are the words of a people who have done much thinking about the issues of war and peace over the last 450 years. I beg all hon. members to pay them some heed.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Madam Speaker, on hearing of last night's attack on Israel, my first thoughts were for friends in Israel, that they and other Israelis had not been hurt.
We now know, of course, that innocent victims have died and our hearts go out to them and their families. We hope that Israel and Israelis will be spared further attack.
This unprovoked aggression reminds us of the tremendous price Israel pays simply to exist, and I am sure that everyone in this House supports Israel's right to defend itself.
Yesterday morning, we were hoping against all hope that this would be a short war. Today, things are not so optimistic. Saddam Hussein has now had the opportunity to see the destruction that this war will bring. Is it too much to hope that he may now be open to appeals to withdraw from Kuwait and bring an early end to this war?


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, nothing more graphically illustrates the international necessity of stopping Saddam Hussein than his reckless and cynical attack on Israel, its cities and its civilians. Saddam is callously trying to provoke a broadened war, one that could lead to a global conflagration.
Yesterday we heard some eloquent speeches in this House about the reported losses of Iraqi lives. While all members of this House are concerned about casualties and loss of life, be they Iraqi or otherwise, the deaths of his own people are of no consequence to this man.
Only the destruction of this man's military capability will restore international peace and security. I commend the Israeli government for its restraint to date, the courage of its people not to retaliate and urge them to continue to show restraint. The United Nations coalition will deal with Saddam, and the sooner the better for all.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, last night SCUD missiles from Iraq rained down on Israel, proving Saddam Hussein is a man of his hateful word. He had sworn to attack this country which offered no other provocation than to exist. I vehemently condemn this villainous attack on Israel. This further act of aggression by Saddam Hussein is not going unanswered by the allied forces. Reports say the Iraqi Scud launch sites have either been destroyed or are under further attack by the allied forces, and rightly so. I commend Israel for her courageous restraint not to retaliate at once. I hope and pray Israel will continue to place her faith in the allied forces. I further pray that her citizens are not placed in greater peril. World sympathy goes out to the families of Israeli citizens lost last night. Our thoughts are with Israel and the allied forces striving to protect her.


SENIOR CITIZENS
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Madam Speaker, earlier this week, St. Thomas University in Fredericton established what they have called a Third Age Centre, under their Chair in Gerontology. Its mission is to give meaning to life at all ages but, particularly, to emphasize that as we get older we nonetheless continue to grow in value and potential as human beings.
In a recent essay, Rabbi Gunther Plaut of Toronto has warned against some attitudes that seem to say, in a society where new is considered better, the elderly are seen as so much extra baggage. In reality, the reverse is true. Never before have senior citizens had such an opportunity to exert their influence towards a better world.
There is truth about the wisdom of age. Never before has the world been in greater need of wise and mature judgment based on long and growing knowledge from real life experience. Especially in these recent days, as hostilities have erupted in the Persian Gulf, there is a world-wide frustration and dismay that mankind has not yet learned some of the most tragic lessons of history.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, in response to the unfolding events in this tragic war in the Middle East, I want to express my personal and party's concern over the unnecessary and unwarranted attack by Iraq against the State of Israel. It is a shock to all of the people in Israel and certainly to the diaspora as well.
I want to comment, frankly, on the remarkable restraint shown by the leadership of the State of Israel in response to this attack. This restraint is a model, I think, for all of the nations involved to ponder and consider, because the most vulnerable, democratic country in the whole region is the only one that is apparently showing the kind of restraint necessary at this time.
I have members of my own family living there. They have been pioneers in that country since the early 1920s. I share, with other families, a deep concern not only for Israelis but for every human being in that region. Let us hope that the restraint shown by the Israeli government
will be a model for other nations in the region. Let us hope for a swift peace and let us hope for a peaceful future.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I know I am joined by all members of this House and, indeed, by all Canadians in conveying our deepest respect and appreciation at this special time for our young men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces who are serving in the Persian Gulf. As well as those in uniform, there are National Defence civilians in support of this very delicate operation, whose dedication and sacrifice have served us so admirably and we are sure will continue to do so.
From all of us, I am sure, well done.



Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Madam Speaker, Canadian forces are now taking part in operations in the Persian Gulf. These men and women are outstanding in their professionalism and have a tremendous sense of duty. We have every reason to be proud of our people in the forces who are performing their duties with great zeal. I urge all Canadians to support our troops by sending them words of encouragement so they will feel truly supported by the Canadian people in their desire to carry out the missions with which they are entrusted.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, it was my experience on July 12, 1990, as my colleagues and I sat on the Mount of Olives, overlooking the city of Jerusalem, that I had come to a land of beginnings, a land of great history. It was there that I truly felt the greatest sense of peace and personal satisfaction I have ever experienced in my travels around the world, never believing that this would be, as it is today, a land of anxiety, fear, confusion and chaos. I guess it is best reflected in the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower when he said: "When people speak to you about a preventative

war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience I have come to hate war. War settles nothing."
Tb those who have the responsibility for leadership in this war and the ceaseless quoting of the Pearsonian diplomacy, here is what he said: "The grim fact is that we prepare for war like precocious giants and for peace like retarded pygmies."
I have great hope for peace in the Middle East at this time. I would like to share my sorrow about what has happened there. Perhaps if tolerance persists as it is today, then we might have answers to this problem.


SADDAM HUSSEIN
Larry Schneider: Madam Speaker, the unbelievable consequences of power in the hands of a madman returns to terrorize the free world. Saddam Hussein's unimaginable atrocities against innocent adults and children, his senseless eight-year war against his neighbours, and his continued refusal to respond to the diplomatic peace efforts of the past five and one half months, have pushed the free world into war.
It is my wish that others in the world who may be contemplating a similar course of action will learn of the senselessness of acts of aggression towards humanity.
I wish to commend the Israelis for their restraint in this crisis. The Israelis position is one that can best be appreciated by those currently immersed in the destruction caused by Saddam Hussein. Our prayers go out to them.
To the men and women of Canada's Armed Forces, a team which has continued to maintain a high level of military competence and tolerance, I offer my prayers as well. May they return home be without incident.


APPEAL FOR PEACE
Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, for decades Canadian women, in solidarity with other women around the world, have worked to encourage the use of non-violent strategies of conflict resolution and to end oppression and violence in all their forms.
Women have historically been the victims of war. Women have historically not had a voice in the decisions about wars in which they are the victims. They are the mourning mothers, here at home, or those with their children who are in the horrors of the theatres of war. Women have shown their commitment around the world to peace; women at Greenham Common in the U.K., for example, or Mothers of the Disappeared in Central America.
Today, women across Canada, through demonstrations, through writing letters, through attempting to contact their parliamentarians and through raising the consciousness of others in Canada are appealing to our government to include them in the decision making.
Members of Parliament across the country have been approached by women in Canada who are concerned and want their voices heard for peace. It is time all of us listened to the women of Canada.


William D. (Bill) Casey: Madam Speaker, when I woke up this morning I was sure that the news would tell me that Israel had retaliated against Iraq, resulting in a dramatic expansion of this horrible war. It did not happen.
I want to recognize the restraint shown by Israel by not responding to the attack by Iraq. There was no threat to Iraq from Israel. The attack was not even at military targets, but at highly populated areas in the heartland of Israel. The attack was simply an attempt to provoke a further expansion of the war.
We should remember that this restraint is even more profound and meaningful when we consider that since events during the Second World War, one of the main principles of Israel has been "never again". Never again will they not respond to aggression against the Jewish people.
January 17, 1991

The whole world breathed a sigh of relief when Israel broke that principle in the interest of containing this war. I know I speak on behalf of many Canadians when I say I am truly grateful to Israel, and I strongly urge them to continue to show this strength, even in the face of more attempts to provoke.


GULF CRISIS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, at this stage, we have to conclude that the government has dissipated Canada's reputation as a peacemaker in the world. That is a very sad conclusion.
It seems to us, now we are in this unwanted war, that our military efforts should be on the side of providing health, hospital and field medical services. Our role should be one that will increase and not demolish our credibility once the hostilities are over. This is a war. The solution of the problem in Kuwait is not by means of war and it is not a solution that a majority of Canadians support.
Canadians would want to see Canada involved in diplomatic efforts in order to bring an end to this unwanted and terrible situation which is deteriorating by the day.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last night Canadians were horrified to learn of the unprovoked attack by Iraq on Tel Aviv and Haifa, the two largest cities of Israel.
I am sure that all members of the House and all Canadians will share with me in expressing our deep sympathy and solidarity with our friends in Israel. It is clear that Israel has shown remarkable restraint in the face of a very real threat to its own people.
Oral Questions
Will the Prime Minister tell the House what decisions his government has made in response to the attack of last night?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, as the government indicated earlier this week, one of the reasons we have been supporting and been part of the international coalition, and the reason why Canada has stood steadfast with the United Nations, was to make sure that an unmistakable clear signal went out to Saddam Hussein about the resolve of this nation to defend international order. That includes standing firm against anybody who attacks a friendly state, such as the State of Israel.
Last night, in the face of this unprovoked attack, I communicated with the Government of Israel and then sent a letter to the Prime Minister in which I said:
You may be aware that I have strongly condemned Saddam Hussein's missile attack on your country tonight. However, I am writing to you to express my profound sympathy to you and to the people of Israel.
Canada deplores this criminal and unprovoked act. It demonstrates, if anyone was still in doubt, the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to international peace and security.
The attack on Israel was a clear attempt to provoke retaliation in order to bring your country into the war. I know this will not escape your government.
Our thoughts are with you tonight. I wish to express the sympathy of the Canadian Government to the victims and their families. I convey the best wishes of all Canadians to them for a speedy recovery.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been in touch with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel. I spoke earlier today with the President of the United States. Canada will take all appropriate action to make sure that Saddam Hussein respects international law and order and the prescriptions of the United Nations, or suffers the consequences.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We
are glad to hear that the Prime Minister sent this message on behalf of the entire House and the Parliament of Canada, because yesterday's attack was entirely unjustified. We feel very deeply about these attacks that were absolutely unprovoked, and we were particularly impressed by the attitude taken by the Israeli government, both during the past few months when faced with verbal threats and yesterday, when those threats were actually carried out.

January 17, 1991
Oral Questions
However, I now want to ask the Prime Minister whether a decision has been made by the government to make available the kind of humanitarian aid Israel and the Israeli people might need in the present situation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, late last night I spoke to the Israeli ambassador, and I told him that the government was prepared to provide any humanitarian aid Israel and the moderate Arab States affected by the situation might need.
This morning, the Secretary of State for External Affairs communicated directly with Mr. Levy, the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, to express Canada's sympathy and offer any humanitarian aid his country might need to deal with problems caused by attacks by that dictator, Saddam Hussein.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have another question for the Prime Minister. As a result of last night's tragic attack on Israel, there were seven casualties. All members of the House know there are many Canadian nationals in Israel at this moment.
What steps has the government taken to ensure the safety of Canadians who are presently in Israel?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, in Israel and elsewhere in the region, there are some 14,000 Canadians now.
We are naturally in more than daily contact with our embassies and posts. We have established a system of wardens, whereby members of the Canadian community in each of those countries, including Israel, help the Canadian Embassy keep track of the location and requirements of Canadians.
My information, as of this morning, from Israel and from other countries in the region is that no Canadians have been injured. All Canadians know how to have access to their embassy.
We have, in addition, yesterday established and published an 800 number in Canada for use by Canadians who have relatives or friends in the Middle East. That 800 number of course will work around the clock. I can report to the House that understandably it was very
actively used last night. By that means we hope to be able to respond immediately and fully to concerns on the part of Canadians who have family or friends in the region.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a question with either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The tragic attack last night in Israel demonstrates how this war carries with it the real potential of escalation and broadening of the conflict.
I would like to ask either of the two front-benchers: Will the United Nations Security Council or other agencies of the UN be seized of this particular issue, and will the Security Council be convened immediately to address this new escalation and broadening of the war which adds a new dangerous dimension to the whole conflict? Can the Secretary of State advise us of what role the United Nations and its agencies will be playing in response to this new development?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for External affairs was in touch yesterday with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as we have been on a fairly regular basis from before the outbreak of hostilities, with a view to finding a formula that would persuade Saddam Hussein to respect the decisions of that international body.
We maintain that, if a signal from Saddam Hussein would have been his intention to respect the law and withdraw from Kuwait which he illegally occupied, it would have had a beneficial effect on the attitudes of the members of the Security Council. But we are now engaged in a campaign now and Canada is there with other members upholding the United Nations, making sure that his war machine will never again be used against innocent neighbours and against states in the region such as Israel.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, we have heard that response before.
My more specific question is: Would the new dimension added to this conflict as result of the attack last night bring about a convocation of the Security Council to address that and to determine what means might be employed by the international body to try to limit the conflict?
January 17, 1991

In particular, in Canada's own case, in response to a question I raised yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that the Government of Canada was interested in maintaining lines of communication so that signals could be transmitted.
We understand that the Secretary of State has ordered the expulsion of Iraqi diplomats. I would ask if he could confirm that. If that is the case, can he tell us what lines of communication the government would then be continuing so these signals might be passed back and forth so that whenever it is appropriate we can find a way of bringing this conflict to an end?
Right Hon, Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Madam Speaker, it may very well be a surprise to the hon. member, but it is a surprise to few others that there is a capacity for escalation in the activities of Saddam Hussein. He attacked Kuwait. That was an escalation. It is highly probable that had he not been stopped, he would have gone on to attack Saudi Arabia. He has made lethal threats through the peace against the State of Israel. Last night he began to carry out those threats. The hon. member should not pretend to be surprised by this escalation.
That capacity for escalation is precisely the reason that the United Nations was already seized of the grave threat that this aggression by Saddam Hussein posed to the world and was determined to take actions to stop it. We had hoped that we could stop it peacefully and diplomatically, but we were determined that we would stop it in any event.
When it became clear, first, that diplomacy had gone as far as it could and, second, that the time the people sought for the use of sanctions was being used to perfect chemicals weapons, to perfect biological weapons, to pollute the Persian Gulf, and also to extend the network of terrorist possibilities available to Saddam Hussein, then we believed it was time to act. That is the view of the United Nations. That is the view of the Security Council. The way to stop escalation is to stop Saddam Hussein.
An hon. member Right on.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We join all members of the House and did so last night in decrying the particularly unjustified attack on Israel and, indeed,
Oral Questions
sadly the predictable attack. It has been one of the reasons why this party felt that getting into this war without having exercised all other options was exactly what this could lead to.
I want to add my voice to those who have said very sincerely to Israel that we admire their restraint and their contribution to the world community by trying to exercise restraint.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: As has been mentioned earlier, of course, there are many Canadian families who have relatives and friends in Israel, as there are others in Canada who have relatives and friends in the region. I was pleased that the Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned that there will be an 800 number.
I would just ask the Prime Minister again if there is other assistance that is being given to all those in Canada who have relatives and friends in the area? What is the Canadian government able to do for those people to allay their fears and make sure that communication is available to them?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I think that the consular number, the 800 number, is one important step because that allows individuals to identify precisely their concerns and allow us to respond.
But I think that the Leader of the New Democratic Party refers to another important element of this. There has been great restraint shown by Israel and the House respects and encourages that.
It also has to be said that there has been great restraint shown by the Arab countries and indeed by those of Arab origin in this country and that, too, should be encouraged by all of us in the House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: This should be recognized by us.
We have our consular people established as a task force, available to do everything that we can. This is not a traditional situation. If there are new or other things that need doing, I would hope that the Leader of the New Democratic Party and, indeed, others in the House, would suggest them to me. Within the range of our capacity, we will do everything that we can.

January 17, 1991
Oral Questions
As the Prime Minister has said, in terms of humanitarian assistance, we have communicated immediately to Israel and also to Jordan the willingness of the Government of Canada to be of extra help with regard to humanitarian requirements.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the information the minister has given. I think it is useful, not just to us but to Canadians watching.
Of course one of the tragedies of this war is the displacement and hardship on civilians, all those who have not been involved in the conflict but certainly are victims.
We understand that Jordan has opened its borders and there are a number of refugees fleeing now and some who have fled there in the past. I understand that the United Nations has estimated there could be about 1.5 million refugees as a result of this war. I understand also that the United Nations has undertaken an augmented relief fund.
Can the minister tell the House what other humanitarian measures the Canadian government is going to take to assist these refugees, to assist victims of this war so that we can play our part in that aspect of humanitarian need?


Charles Joseph Clark: The House will know that when this crisis was caused by the attack by Saddam Hussein against Kuwait, there were immediate impacts upon third countries, particularly caused by the outflow of refugees and the movement of displaced workers. Jordan was one of those and Egypt was another.
The package of actions the Prime Minister announced in early August included contributions in the neighbourhood of $75 million by the Government of Canada for humanitarian purposes. A little more than a third of that was directed to Jordan and a little less than a third of that to Egypt and contributions to other places in the world. That has already been done.
I am seeking to reach the foreign minister of Jordan by telephone this morning to communicate directly to him the Prime Minister's message to King Hussein, asking the Jordanians to indicate areas in which it would be helpful for Canada and, indeed, the rest of the world, but for Canada specifically, to offer further help. We
think that it is in these circumstances most efficient to respond to needs as they are identified by the countries which have to deal directly with the problem. We are doing that and we are prepared, again with in the limits known to the House, to consider other initiatives that would be helpful in the circumstances.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I have the following question for the minister. As he said in his reply to my colleague, there is a war on, and Canada supported that war. At the same time we must plan for peace, for the end of the war. I want to ask the minister whether Canada is now taking part in diplomatic initiatives within the United Nations or with other countries, first to find a way to end this war and second, to promote peace in the region in the future.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, with respect, I must correct part of what the hon. member said. Canada supported the United Nations. Canada is supporting international law and order.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: What Canada supports is the integrity and security of Kuwait, Israel and other countries that may be attacked by Saddam Hussein.
As for what may happen after the crisis, after the conflict, I have already had some conversations with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in the course of which I advised him that the Prime Minister and myself were interested and determined to maintain close liaison with the Secretary-General and the United Nations on the subject of seeking ways to make speedy progress after the end of conflict.
This morning, I spoke to Dr. Abdel Mejuid, the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs. We discussed the situation in the region and other issues but we also talked about what would have to be done once peace is restored. A peacekeeping activity was mentioned in which Canada might play a role, and we also touched on other political and humanitarian questions.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, as my leader and this government has said, we admire the incredible restraint that has been shown by Israel at this time in the face of, really, unprovoked attack.

I think that in the interests of peace in the Middle East, they even deferred their right to self-defence. That is quite an incredible undertaking, and I would presume that all of you as leaders, particularly sitting in the cabinet or ex-cabinet ministers, must know what it means to let their constituents down in a sense.
That is what the sense in Israel is right at this moment. I think and I hope they appreciate the interests of world peace.
I was listening carefully to the Minister of External Affairs whose courtesies I have appreciated. Can the government tell this House what further steps are being taken militarily and diplomatically by the United Nations to ensure that no further attacks will take place against Israel and to ensure the safety of Israel, which is presently being held hostage in the Iraq-Kuwait war?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I should tell my hon. friend that, as she might have noted from the response of the Government of Canada last night and from my remarks in the House of Commons some three days ago, this government has always taken as a matter of policy that the ultimate objective of Saddam Hussein would be an attack on Israel.
I conveyed to the House that this would be unacceptable to the Government of Canada. I indicated why it would be unacceptable. I indicated why we would resist it in all circumstances. For that reason, I communicated this morning with President Bush and had a lengthy conversation with him in regard to the present security status of Israel.
My hon. friend is quite right. Israel has exercised remarkable restraint. That restraint is not eternal. The coalition forces have, since that incident and will today, be taking action of such a persuasive nature against Iraq that we believe and hope that will obviate the need for the state of Israel to respond at an early moment.
I have always recognized that no one has the right to tell the state of Israel when and how it must defend itself. A nation of its suffering and of its extraordinary heritage, Israel always has the right to defend itself, and always has. I hope in the circumstances that the response of the great coalition, which seeks to preserve fundamental values, will persuade Israel that perhaps waiting
Oral Questions
at this moment is in its interest and in the interest of the cause of peace.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I believe the government has noted Israel's tremendous patience. Let it not be tried any more.

The Canadian tradition has always been to help war victims. Sadly, innocent Israeli families are now in this tragic situation.
Does the government have other plans to help the people of Israel?


Martin Brian Mulroney: This morning, the Secretary of State for External Affairs called Minister Levy of Israel to let him know that Canada is prepared to offer all available humanitarian resources, and that we would do so gladly and immediately.
The minister also told Mr. Levy, who voiced his appreciation, that the government also intended to offer its assistance to King Hussein and had also mentioned this to the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs. Not only did Minister Levy agree but he was delighted with Canada's decision to maintain and intensify its humanitarian aid to Israel, Egypt and any other non-belligerents in the region.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last night in response to the unjustified, unprovoked and callous attack upon Israel the Prime Minister said that Canada may play a new role with its allies in retaliatory action aimed at Iraq. I want to give the Prime Minister an opportunity now to tell Canadians specifically what he had in mind and if perhaps today he has issued new orders through the minister of defence to the chief of defence staff that could involve a change in position or mission for the Canadian forces or could, perhaps, mean sending additional Canadian forces to the gulf such as CF-18s or ground troops. Would he tell Canadians more specifically what he had in mind when he made that statement?

Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the government has not, following a meeting of the cabinet this morning, issued new instructions to the military. We are examining all possibilities with our intelligence and military officials and with allies around the world. I referred to a conversation with President Bush this morning. There were conversations between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the foreign minister of Egypt and with the foreign minister of Israel earlier today. We are examining all possibilities that would allow Canada to assist in a constructive and helpful way the prosecution of a very important initiative now under way in the Middle East.
Canada is not a superpower. Our military means are limited and we use them traditionally only with the greatest of care and reluctance. But I have no reluctance in telling you that while the mandate has not been defined because we are presently examining all of the options, Canada will not sit idly by in the face of unprovoked attack upon friendly countries. We are an ally and full partner in the coalition set up by the United Nations to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We will play a full and, if need be, a growing role and commit the necessary resources to ensure that justice is brought to that area of the world.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, the attack on Israel last night gives to that nation one of the most difficult dilemmas any country can face. It is a Hobson's choice. If they restrain themselves as they have and do not defend in order to protect the multilateral coalition, they may be encouraging Iraq and/or other countries to aggress or take advantage of the situation.
Might I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has called in the ambassadors. If he has not, will he call in the ambassadors from the neighbouring states and tell them that any sign of harm or taking advantage of Israel's restraint will be taken most seriously by Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, both the Prime Minister and I last night communicated directly to the ambassador of Israel. I am now in the process of calling not the ambassadors, but the foreign ministers of countries in the region. In the conversation I have had so far with Egypt, certainly I was struck by the appreciation on the
part of Egyptian authorities of the restraint that has been shown by Israel, indeed the admiration, the sense that what Israel is doing in these circumstances, far from being a sign of weakness is a sign of the strength and maturity of that country.
Those are not just the sentiments of Canada. Those are the sentiments expressed this morning to me by the foreign minister of Egypt. But I will consider the proposal made by my friend and convene a meeting of the ambassadors to Canada of countries neighbouring Israel. They share, as we share, a profound interest in the integrity and stability of Israel, as they share a profound interest in stopping the one force that now most threatens to destabilize Israel, and that is Saddam Hussein.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question also to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
We appreciate very much the statement he made earlier in answer to my leader that Canada is already reaching out to offer additional humanitarian aid to those countries that are immediately faced with such devastating humanitarian problems.
I would like to pursue that a little further. It has been estimated that about $1 million per day is being spent on this tragic war. I know that everyone in this House, regardless of our differences, pray for an early peace.
Since it is estimated by UN officials that about 1.5 million people may be displaced, coming I believe just from Iraq and Iran alone, and of course there are other humanitarian issues in that general area, will Canada plan to contribute at least as much as we have to the war effort, or perhaps more, to assist people devastated by war in those countries that are going to bear the brunt of the immediate refugee problems? Will we be able to provide practical help as quickly as possible by such means as transportation of personnel and direct assistance for teams of workers in refugee camps, as well as relief agencies?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we are naturally looking at means by which we can help deal with a new refugee problem. The estimates she cites, in my judgment, may well be low. I think that the results of Saddam Hussein's
January 17, 1991

aggression could well, with respect to refugees, be more than 1.5 million displaced persons of which she speaks.
I have to say that the hon. member, and I hope members of her party, should stop citing just half the costs. Of course there are costs to war, but there have been extraordinary costs, not least to the Third World, as a result of this invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein.
Among the things that happened were that thousands of people, people from the poorest countries, from Bangladesh, from the Philippines, from Sri Lanka, from countries in Africa, who were depending upon work in that region were forced to quit that region. That is causing right now immense problems. The longer Saddam Hussein is able to stay, the more time it is giving him. Time is what my hon. friend was asking for last week. The more time that it is given him, the longer those costs accumulate.
Obviously I cannot undertake to make the kind of expenditure the hon. member talks about, but I can certainly give her a commitment that Canada will play an active role with respect to response to the refugee problem.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the minister. Of course there are great humanitarian costs, and we do not begin to know them, sitting in our comfort here in Canada. We are just as concerned as he is with all aspects.
Just thinking ahead, as I know he is, and I am sure the Minister of Immigration is as well, I would like to ask this question. We know from past experience that the countries which receive refugees in the first and second stage of refugee movement are usually the countries left with permanent refugee camps and with stateless people. This is a great tragedy. I would hope that we would plan now-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member please put her question? This is getting into debate.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am asking the minister if we will begin to plan now to be pro-active to try to prevent this from happening in the months ahead.
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I think that Canada's history has been one of being pro-active and helpful in refugee and refugee-like situations.
We are following this very carefully, and I stated that we would regard any humanitarian requests in a positive way.
We are, as my colleague has said, working with the UN Disaster Relief Organization. For the most part I believe that the UN is looking at potential repatriation as opposed to resettlement. But we are in constant touch. The situation is of course evolving all the time. It is our intention to continue to work with the United Nations on the humanitarian aspects and the refugee aspects, as well as in the military coalition.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
I am sure the minister knows, as does everybody in this House, that there are other Canadians who are deeply involved in this conflict. They are the families of the men and women who are bravely serving for Canada in the Persian Gulf.
I would like to ask the minister if he could give us his assurance in the House that the proper amount of planning and resources have been allocated to deal with the real needs of these families and help them cope with the anxiety. Could the minister give us some information on that?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, I would be glad to respond to my hon. colleague, because I know he is very much concerned for the families in his area.
I am pleased to say that we have a family support system in place through our department. They have been operating for some time in Halifax, Esquimalt, and Cold Lake where the majority of personnel come from. That support system is working very effectively. I visited with them not long ago. They have counselling resources. In addition, each of the ships has set up a special group of the families related to those ships. They are providing support for the families. The spouses are meeting together.

January 17, 1991
Oral Questions
I think it is working out very effectively. When I visited with them recently, certainly their response was very appreciative. We have also indicated to them that if additional resources are in any way required we will ensure that those are received.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The whole world held its breath last night, and thank God there was no use of chemical or nerve gas warfare in the attack. The next time we might not be so lucky.
My question therefore is for the Prime Minister. The Israeli Embassy today confirmed that there are people on the West Bank in the Gaza, men, women and children, who have not received gas masks.

We know there are men, women and children on the West Bank and in the Gaza strip who have not been given gas masks. Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether he is prepared to join his allies in seeing to it that gas masks are distributed to these men, women and children as soon as possible?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I do not have a specific response. I am aware of a Supreme Court decision, I believe in the State of Israel, which required that all citizens be provided with the necessary equipment. I know that the Government of Israel and the people of Israel are very principled-it is a very civilized country-and will want to make every effort to make sure that everybody receives these masks.
I can check into it immediately afterward and I would be happy to advise my hon. friend. The position of the Government of Canada, as conveyed officially, always was that the same benefits, of course, must apply to all citizens. We will look into it for the member and get back to her as quickly as we can.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and it concerns national security in Canada.
Can the Solicitor General indicate to the House whether it is the intention of the Government of Canada to invoke sections of the emergencies act, and more
specifically those sections dealing with international emergencies and war emergencies?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I do not foresee that possibility at the moment.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General.
I was advised yesterday by the President of the Canadian Arab Federation, Mr. James Kafieh that Canadians of Arab and Iraqi origin are, to quote Mr. Kafieh being "harassed and badgered" by the Security Intelligence Service.
Will the Solicitor General give his assurance that the Government of Canada, through the Security Intelligence Service, is not targeting for investigation Canadians solely on the basis of their ethnic or religious origin?
Can he reassure Arab Canadians that their rights will be protected and that they have not been placed under special surveillance by the Security Intelligence Service?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I should perhaps respond to that, because I gave the assurance my hon. friend seeks in my speech to the House of Commons three days ago.
I indicated then that the invocation of the War Measures Act in the Second World War, which had imprisoned unfairly Japanese and Italian Canadians, was something that we had corrected and would never happen again. I gave Arab Canadians, particularly Iraqi Canadians, the assurance that that blot on our national history would never be repeated. I indicated to the House that the laws would apply fairly to all Canadians.
There will not be any special edicts of any kind and certainly no illegal, arbitrary or capricious actions taken against Canadians of Arab extraction, all of whom are deemed to be, like all of us, first-class citizens.


GULF CRISIS
John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, the UN resolutions on which this government has based Canada's involvement in this war were strictly limited to removing Iraq from Kuwait and to restoring the Government of Kuwait, as well as freeing the hostages and reparations.

In his statement the other night, George Bush clearly added to those objectives: to destroy the economic, military and political structure of Iraq and some say the agenda really is to destroy Saddam Hussein. Which is the agenda of this government? Is it George Bush's agenda, or is it the United Nations agenda?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, there may come a day-and I hope it is soon-when the NDP will rid itself of this reflexive anti-American position on everything. I say it in all respect to my hon. friend. Well, for example, there is chuckling from the NDP. The socialist leader in Britain, Neil Kinnock, said that in the interests of distancing himself from the government, he did not propose to distance himself from his obligations to support the United Nations.
I say to my hon. friend that the United Nations has spoken clearly and effectively. Perhaps my hon. friend may care to read the objectives of the UN. Confronted with the intransigence of a dictator who invaded a friendly neighbour Arab state and who proved his criminality even further last night by attacking Israel, Canada is going to join with all members of the coalition to drive him out of Kuwait and to make sure that if we in the world community deals with him again, it will be in a position of his acceptance of the rule of international law. He will be held responsible for everything that is taking place.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, this party has stood with him-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John F. Brewin: But, when the United States is wrong, this party and this country should stand and say to the United States that it is wrong. That is the situation we are in in this case.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have a question?


John F. Brewin: Yes, I have, Madam Speaker.
My question is for the Prime Minister, whatever our differences on this issue, U.S. commanders are now saying that the control, communications and capacity of Saddam Hussein to wage war have been destroyed. Will this government join with all of us in this House and ask
Oral Questions
the United States administration to take a pause in the destruction and seek peace with Iraq in this war?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, is my hon. friend suggesting that with an attack against Israel last night, we should take a break and ask Saddam Hussein to be nice? This is absolutely preposterous.
What is even more serious is the suggestion that somehow we are in violation of resolution 678 and that the United States is doing something illegal. The resolution passed on November 29, 1990 does a number of things. It demands that Iraq comply fully with the resolutions. It authorizes member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait to restore international peace and security in the area. It requests that all states provide appropriate support to restore international peace and security. That is exactly what we are in the process of doing. We have rallied to the call of the United Nations which is saying at this critical moment in the life of our organization, "Step forward those of you who believe in durable peace and freedom, step forward and defend the interests of the United Nations", and that is exactly what Canada is doing.


NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, 118 nations are gathered at the United Nations seeking a comprehensive test ban. Canada is among them.
In light of the critical situation and the sensitivity to testing a new generation of weapons, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate to the House how Canada will vote today at the United Nations on this important issue.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that Canada's view has been that it is important to maintain integrity and progress within the non-proliferation treaty regime, and that will guide our actions today.
I think the hon. member will share my amazement at the suggestion by the New Democratic Party in the question just posed, that the response of the Government of Canada should be to say that after Saddam Hussein attacks Israel, he should be rewarded with a

January 17, 1991
Points of Order
pause in the counterattack against him. That is absolutely unacceptable policy for any respectable Canadian.


BALTIC STATES
Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the tragic situation in the Baltic states.
Could he indicate to the House whether he has taken any steps at the United Nations to have this question raised at the Security Council of the United Nations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the hon. member was perhaps absent, one way or another, when I responded to that question the other day.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


TABLING OF LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I have, in both official languages, a copy of my letter to the Prime Minister of Israel which I sent last night. I would be happy to table both of them in the House.


POINTS OF ORDER
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, earlier today during statement period, the member for Okanagan Centre made references to my service of my constituents' wishes.
I do not at this time have the specific quotation as published in Hansard because Hansard has not in fact reproduced his particular words.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would request your consideration for me to reserve my right to rise at a later date in this House on a point of privilege to clarify the specific comments that were made by the member for Okanagan Centre.
Madam Deputy Speaker. The point made by the hon. member has been taken. Point of order, the hon. member for York South-Weston.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, during Question Period the member for Calgary Northeast, an independent member of this House, asked a very serious question about whether or not-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John V. Nunziata: Members continue to laugh. He asked a very serious question about the situation in Lithuania. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, supposedly a senior member of the government, made disparaging comments and attributed motives to the member for Calgary Northeast.
The member may be an independent member and not a member of that particular caucus but he is deserving of some respect in this House. I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to withdraw those comments about the member for Calgary Northeast.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I can only conclude that the hon. member who has just spoken has an unrelieved allergy to former Prime Ministers.


John V. Nunziata: You keep it up, you're not going anywhere.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs continues. Not only is he insulting Canadians of Lithuanian origin and showing contempt for that particular-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I regret that the normal rules do not apply to the hon. member for York South-Weston. If there was some suggestion that I was slighting or causing concern to Canadians of Baltic origin, let me be clear on what I said. I said that the hon. member had not been present when I had answered precisely that question put by our colleague from Winnipeg-it used to be Birds Hills-or whatever the constituency now is named.
January 17, 1991	COMMONS DEBATES	17293
The record is clear as to what I said both to the former member and in this House today. To refresh the memory of the House-


An hon. member:: Your nose is growing.


Charles Joseph Clark: -what I indicated in answer to the earlier question was that we were looking at the possibility of pursuing that issue both in the United Nations and in the CSCE, that there was a problem in both of those cases because the Soviet Union possesses a formal or an informal veto. I believe that is virtually word for word the answer I gave to the member for Winnipeg when that question was raised two or three days ago. I thought it would be better, given the time that the question came, at the end of Question Period, to respond with brevity rather than at length to that question.


Lloyd Axworthy: That's not what you said.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why don't you apologize?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do realize that this is Friday. It has been a very difficult week on everybody's nerves and everybody's emotions.
I am very sad that this afternoon we would get to a point where harsh words would be shouted across that would be regretted by members who utter them. This could get the House into a situation which, to my feeling, would be very difficult for the rest of the country who is watching us.
There is a conflict in the Middle East, and this should not be a reason for us to create more of a conflict in the House of Commons.
I will recognize the hon. member for Calgary Northeast who has been most concerned with what has been going on in the last little while.
I see the hon. member for York South-Weston whose words I have chosen not to hear at one point. I think the wise thing for me to do would be to listen very quietly to the hon. member for Calgary Northeast and then for the House to resume debate.
Hopefully, the hon. member for York South-Weston will listen carefully to what his colleague from Calgary will have to say. Hopefully, he will change his mind about "not being finished".
Points of Order
I think that we should resume debate on the subject that is in front of the House.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the record in the sense that I was present when the question about Lithuania was posed.
Therefore, I wanted to pursue the matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him what new developments have occurred since that time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, if the House agrees to a brief extension of Question Period, I would certainly take a moment to indicate that we are continuing to look at whether or not it is possible to make-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why don't you apologize?


Charles Joseph Clark: I am trying, Madam Speaker, despite shouts from the NDP, to respond to the question that was placed.
We are looking at ways in which the matter might be brought before either the CSCE or the United Nations in a way that would not encounter a veto by the Soviet Union.
In addition to that, the Prime Minister has written to Mr. Gorbachev. I have just written to the new Soviet foreign minister requesting an explicit and early response to the Prime Minister's letter. I am planning meetings in the next two or three days with representatives of leaders of the Baltic communities in Canada.
I know there have been meetings involving members of this House interested in this issue and the leaders of the Baltic community in Canada to see if there are practical ways in which we can bring our influence to bear on the Soviet Union.
There is now-at least there was at 11.30 and I think it is now in progress-a meeting involving three members of this House representing three parties with the Soviet ambassador to make it clear that the representations I had made to that ambassador that the failure of the Soviet Union to change its approach to the Baltic people will have an effect upon the range of its relations with Canada.
That is the message that I communicated, and that is the message being repeated by members of three parties in this House. I know the member's interest in these things, and I will naturally try to keep him advised as to developments in the issue.

January 17, 1991
Privilege
If he has suggestions that would be constructive to the government, I would naturally appreciate hearing from him.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to listen carefully, because this concerns him.
I do not have a broad experience of parliamentary debate in times of international crisis or wartime, but I am told that traditionally, for instance in Great Britain or France, when there is a crisis of this magnitude and those countries are involved, there is a refreshing lack of political partisanship. We see this happening across the world in other parliaments, with the exception of this one.
Perhaps the Chair could arrange for a meeting with certain leaders or certain groups.
I thought now that Canada was involved in a war, the debate in the House ought to rise above partisan considerations. Today, Madam Speaker, I am amazed to see that those partisan considerations are still there, especially in the attitude of the minister responsible. I would like some indication of what the precedents are in this respect. Madam Speaker, we have done eveiything we could to rise above partisan considerations. We have tried to be co-operative. Madam Speaker, I don't understand why what is happening in the rest of the world is so different from what is happening here. What is going on?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I believe that yesterday, more specifically, the Minister of National Defence organized a number of briefing sessions for various groups, and I think independent members were also able to take advantage of those sessions. So I do not think there is a partisan approach to organizing the stream of information coming from the various departments. Perhaps we could now resume debate. The hon. member for York Simcoe.

The hon. member for York South-Weston is rising now on a question of privilege. I will of course listen to him, but I would ask him to make his point very brief and tell me where he feels that his privileges have been
taken advantage of. Very quickly, the hon. member for York South-Weston.


PRIVILEGE
John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, with the greatest of respect, the tone of your comments would seem to suggest that you have already predetermined my point of privilege. I would ask that you keep an open mind with respect to the points that I am about to make.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I want to say to the hon. member that the tone of his remarks are not very pleasant for the Chair either.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I will improve my tone, if you will improve your tone.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John V. Nunziata: I will state my point of privilege, Madam Speaker. During Question Period today the member from Calgary asked a question about the situation in Lithuania. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, a former Prime Minister in this House, answered that particular question by saying that the hon. member was absent one way or another.
The members on the Conservative side of the House then proceeded to hoot and holler and laugh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I cannot see how this exchange, which I am not going to qualify in any way, has done anything to breach the privileges of the hon. member for York South-Weston.


John V. Nunziata: I have not finished my submission.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House will now resume debate. There is no prima facie point of privilege.


John V. Nunziata: You're not letting me make my point. I have a right to state my point of privilege and you cut me off. You are not giving me an opportunity to make my point. I insist on making my point.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not see a prima facie case of privilege in the words expressed by the hon. member for York South-Weston. We will now resume debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead), (p. 16983) and the motion of Mrs. Collins (p. 17150).
John Cole: Madam Speaker, the failure of the United Nations to handle this crisis-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for York South-Weston will at one point realize that the accusations he has made are really not warranted and are not fair. The hon. member may want to withdraw his comments before he is given the floor again. He may want to consider it and let the Chair know. Resuming debate.


John Cole: Madam Speaker, the failure of the United Nations to handle this crisis would have severe impacts on the world. It might never again be able to play an effective role in responding to aggression. Success in this effort will provide a real prospect for collective security in the future. It is critical for countries like Canada even though we are a long way away. It is very critical for countries with small populations with two superpowers at their borders, but we have very limited capacity. We must preserve international law and order.
This is an opportunity for the United Nations to play the kind of role it was designed to perform. But it also puts the United Nations at risk. If the United Nations fails to live up to those principles, objectives and efforts for which so many people have fought so hard for so many years, what is the future for world peace, law and order? It is critical for the world order that we have peace in this particular situation.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, we are at very profound pass in the events in the Middle East and in the world.
We have had throughout this debate some fine moments of leadership. We have had excellent contribu-
Govemment Orders
tions from both the leaders of the parties involved and from private members as well. There have been most thoughtful contributions. Some of the contributions have been absolutely historic. We have had non-partisan contributions. We have had bipartisan contributions in the very best Canadian tradition. I wish to congratulate those who are responsible for the conduct of Canada's foreign policy.
Today, Madam Speaker, I propose to examine where we are, how we got here, the reaction from our riding and tell a couple of incidents about a young Canadian and a young Palestinian and to reflect on the Arab Canadian population of our country. To begin with, where we are. Israel today is exercising remarkable restraint. There is moral strength in exercising restraint.
As the Prime Minister correctly said today, Israel should not be unduly put to the test. However, I have been brought up to believe there is moral strength in exercising restraint and self-discipline and I congratulate the State of Israel for doing so.
I wish to associate myself with the Prime Minister's statement on the attack on Israel and I salute the Secretary of State for External Affairs who throughout this has exercised statesmanship of an historic character, particularly when he said: "the way to stop escalation is to stop Saddam Hussein and his ilk."
How did we get here? We got into the situation we are playing in the Middle East in the best Canadian tradition. I salute the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra for his historic and courageous contribution to the debate the other day in this House.
There are those who suggest that we are illegitimately with the United Nations. I quote the distinguished Canadian columnist, Jeffrey Simpson who wrote in today's Globe and Mail:
Keeping the peace under UN colours can involve a unified UN command, as in Korea, with strategic and operational authority given to the leading contributing country, the United States. Or it can be, as in the Persian Gulf; contributions by member states working together under UN resolutions but without a unified UN command.
Madam Speaker, the reaction is beginning to come in from across the country. I have here a letter which was faxed to my office two days ago, and I quote:

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Suggesting that we should agree to link withdrawal to the discussion of other regional issues is nothing short of agreeing to negotiate with terrorists and hostage takers-no matter how "legitimate" these grievances may be.
Even more unhappily, the thought of allowing the deadline to pass without following it with speedy and decisive action would lead us to contemplate an even more horrific problem-
While we all wish there were another outcome, it seems evident that the only action that could avoid the current confrontation is our own capitulation which would most certainly only delay an even more horrible future outcome. Those who blame Mr. Bush and the western nations for these circumstances are like those who blame the victim of rape and burglary for the crime perpetrated by the real guilty party.
I know this went on a bit long, but I wanted you to know that there are thoughtful people who support what you are trying to achieve and we do not always show up on the evening news.
I will quote a second fax which came into my office yesterday.
Ibo many Canadians have died in wars in history to have this country turn its back on the need for a co-operative United Nations effort in the Middle East, lb not fulfil the obligations and initiatives of the United Nations would reduce Canada to a less than mediocre entity in the world community. Canadians have died for civility, for justice, for individual rights and the United Nations is the manifestation of the ideals for which they gave their lives.
I said that I wanted to talk briefly about a 19-year old wounded in the trenches. This happened in Sanctuary Wood on June 2, 1916. It was a story which I did not hear until almost 75 years later when the man who was wounded in those trenches attended a reunion of his regiment in Calgary and for the first time told his family the story of the bloody experiences, the mindlessness, the banality and the horror of war.
I am very grateful I was with him that particular day because as as a child I had begged him to tell me of the glory of war and he had always refused to say anything about it. But my father who was hit by a shell in Sanctuary Wood on June 2, 1916 taught me what no movie or history book could tell me about the absolute horror and the stupidity of war. War he said, is sometimes the only course of action when you are dealing with a bully and someone who abuses the rights of others.
I also would like to mention a 24-year old Palestinian whom I met in 1959 while travelling on a train from Gaza to Cairo and who became a close friend. This man of Palestinian origin, Salah el-Dim Subaih, was a teacher who was being resettled in Kuwait, where he served for many years. After he settled he invited me to his
wedding. I was not able to go, but I sent a gift and we became fast friends by correspondence.
Later in the 1967 war I served as the post office for his family in Gaza who were sending letters to relatives in Cairo. There was no mail going back and forth until the Red Crescent and the Red Cross set it up.
From that came waves of gratuity and friendship which I think is really the only basis on which the new world order, of which many have spoken in this House, can be based.
There is something to be said about Arab Canadians. The Prime Minister referred in Question Period to their situation today in response to a question, as he did in his speech the other day.
It is perhaps not a well known fact that in my city of Edmonton, approximately 10 per cent of the Canadian Arab population resides. It is a slightly different profile from the general profile in the fact that generally speaking, Christian Arabs outnumber those of Muslim and Druse origin by three to one in our country, but the majority in Edmonton are of Muslim or Druse origin, although there are substantial numbers of Christian Arabs as well.
We have, as well, a growing Jewish community in Edmonton, largely due to immigration from the Soviet Union. I salute those leaders of the Jewish community in my city, along with the Arab community, led by the example of Professor Baha Abou-Laban, who have engaged in dialogue from the beginning of the time of the intifadah. They have tried to establish, and successfully I believe, the practice and the belief that we here in Canada wish to separate ourselves as much as we can from the quarrels abroad. But that can never entirely be done.
In the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier who spoke in this House on August 19, 1914, when this House was debating the question of the first World War, and in a reference to fellow citizens of German origin at that time, he said at page 10 of Hansard:
They are certainty among our best citizens. They are proud of the land of their adoption, which to many of them is the land of their birth, and they have shown more than once their devotion to British institutions. But, Sir, they would not be men if they had not in their hearts a deep feeling of affection for the land of their ancestors, and nobody would blame them for that.
January 17, 1991

Madam Speaker, those words can apply to Arab Canadians today.
In the words of the Prime Minister speaking on Tuesday, January 15,1991, on the subject, he said at page 16990 of Hansard:
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 II. That
lesson fortunately has been learned in this country.
I wish to associate myself with the words of the Prime Minister and to pledge on behalf of the Government of Canada that that pledge and that undertaking will be upheld, and that restraint will be the order of the day. We will not repeat the mistakes that were made during the Second World War when groups of Canadians of various origins were isolated and were dealt with unfairly-
These are turbulent times, but those who have lived through times of war and times of the formation of history tell us that this is the stuff of history. How do we sort our way through the confusion?
The best way is to commit to the rule of law and to the rule of order, and so therefore I proudly associate myself with the resolution before this House, which I strongly support, and with the conduct of Canada's foreign policy in supporting the work of the United Nations in the Persian Gulf, and I pray, humbly, along with I am sure all members of this House, that the conflict will come to a swift and final end and that a way can be found to establish a permanent and lasting peace based on the principles of the three great monotheistic religions throughout the Middle East and throughout the world.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, my question to the hon. member concerns the situation in the Middle East.
I wonder what his position would be on an international peace conference on the Middle East once hostilities have terminated; whether he would support a homeland for the Palestinians and the resolution of that difficult situation for those people; and whether he would sup-
Govemment Orders
port the re-establishment of an independent, not occupied Lebanon.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, it is a rare privilege, and I mean that sincerely, to have the opportunity in this House to engage in dialogue with the hon. member.
I do indeed support the principle, once peace has been established in the Middle East, of whatever effort can be made toward finding a lasting peace, as I said in the conclusion of my remarks.
If detente between the two superpowers can be preserved and if indeed the cold war has ended, many of the objections to convening such a conference will have been removed. I think that President Bush has recognized that in some of his statements over the past 12 to 18 months and indeed, such a conference would be appropriate.
With reference to a homeland for the Palestinian people, it is my belief that the UN resolutions, not the series that we are debating here today, but the earlier resolutions on Palestine and the preservation of the state of Israel, which is a condition precedent in my mind to an establishment of a Palestinian homeland, ought to be followed. The answer is a qualified but strong yes to the hon. member.
With reference to the Lebanese question, yes, I believe that as soon as possible and as soon as security can be established the occupation of Lebanon ought to cease, and that wonderful country which, when I knew it over three decades ago, was referred to as the Switzerland of the Middle East, can once more find some serenity and peace within itself and security from its neighbours.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend across the way for his comments and afford him the opportunity to add his comments on the following review prepared by the United Nations children's organization, UNICEF, which, in a gulf crisis advisory on January 15, wrote: "The situation of Children: In the event of war in the gulf region a number of factors, apart from damage and destruction to buildings and infrastructure, will affect the welfare of children and women in the region. There will be serious shortages, particularly of food, water,

Government Orders
medicines and energy supplies. Services will be severely curtailed due to diversion for emergency and military needs. Prices will spiral upward and the economic situation could be complicated by the devaluation of local currencies, especially in the majority of the countries of the region which import about half of their essential needs. Widespread environmental degradation resulting from war-related pollution and climatic changes will have unpredictable effects on the local population. The situation will be worsened by the possibility of breakdowns in water and sanitation facilities, especially in urban areas."
I know the member will want to respond with concern for those innocent victims of this conflict and I welcome his comments on that analysis by UNICEF.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I know that the time is limited and I will try to respond as well as I can. I agree that that assessment is probably very accurate. I have not seen it. I thank my hon. friend for mentioning it.
I wish Saddam Hussein could have been listening to the hon. member this morning. I wish he would realize that this is what he has put in train. It is in train and at some point it will come to an end. After it comes to an end, then the world, probably financed by petrodollars because they are available in that area, must commit itself to a rehabilitation program for the entire area. This is not only for men, women and children but to restore the infrastructure of the area which will be severely damaged for the entire Middle East. Perhaps it will be time for a Marshall plan for the entire mid-east with participation and collaboration by all parties, perhaps hand in hand or perhaps following a peace conference and a settlement.
There has to be change, and there has to be removed from the scene in the Middle East the sources of discontent that give fuel to the engines of madmen like Saddam Hussein.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, the world is a much sadder place since January 16, 1991, because the demons of war have been unleashed and absolutely no one knows where this war will lead. Absolutely no one knows what problems, if any, will be resolved.
I think that point was captured very well by William Johnson in an article in The Gazette today entitled: "War's initial success-". Will it boost the government's chances?
It is really extremely sad when one believes that a military action that will destroy literally thousands of lives could in fact do that.
The most pertinent points are the following, but can peace be won? "Will the military victory be followed by a political and diplomatic triumph?" He goes on to point out that it may have some effects in that direction, but he also asks the following. "It could also usher in an era of renewed terrorism, of deepened Arab sullenness, of a growing rift between the nations of Islam and the heirs of Christendom". Therein lies one of the critical issues.

When I was elected on November 21, 1988, I had anticipated a number of issues I felt I would have to come to terms with. I had done a lot of reading and research on the trade agreement with the United States and I had forseen the negative impact on working men and women throughout Canada in various industries.
I had realized also that the tax reforms which the government was contemplating would cause serious hardships to Canadians, especially those in the low and middle income brackets.
Those were major issues. I had throroughly anticipated them. But never had I foreseen that, as a member of this house, I would have to deal, as today, with a war. Neither this war or any other war.
As an idealist, I thought we had established a new world order whereby new peacefull solutions could be developed to such problems as poverty, hunger and sickness in the world without.
Unfortunately, I was wrong. Unfortunately also, technological progress exceeds by far the mechanisms which have been developed to implement peaceful solutions.

I say not at all in a partisan sense that it is unfortunate the Prime Minister had not recalled us earlier so that we could have had this debate, hopefully before hostilities began so that everyone's positions could have been put on the table.

Again, I think in a non-partisan way that while the Prime Minister would like us to believe that he is in close and significant contact with President Bush, it is a grossly exaggerated claim.
For example, why would President Bush, knowing full well that the Canadian Parliament was in the process of discussing this question, not withhold hostilities for a few days? Why could he have not respected our democratic process? Surely, if he had come to the same conclusion, he could have reached that two or three days later.
I must add that I am extremely proud of my party's position and of my leader's position on this issue. We condemn Saddam Hussein. We condemn what he was doing in Kuwait to his people and what he did last night to Israel. Let there be no doubt about that. We condemn him and all people who act as he does.
But there is a double standard. There are people who have committed as great an atrocity, and we have simply verbalized our discontent. That is unfortunate. We too applaud the great, great patience that Israel has shown and the restraint it has demonstrated. I was pleased to hear today that the same comment was made with respect to a number of Arab nations, because they too have shown restraint, and a number of Arabs throughout the world have done the same. I pray that this will continue.
My party supported sanctions, an embargo and diplomacy. We provided proof that those were working in spite of what was said. We had an array of credible individuals from the political scene, the military scene, and a number of other sectors who showed unequivocally that sanctions were working, not only affecting the civilian population but getting at that military infrastructure.
We brought forward evidence that has never been refuted. There is no way under any circumstances that any member of government has ever provided even a slight percentage of the evidence that we put forward.
We had little doubt that if we had been more patient we could have come up with different kinds of solutions. We requested additional time. Perhaps the best indication of how we went about it was the addition of the amendment to the current motion which has been debated, asking whether or not we support the United Nations.
Government Orders
Of course we support the United Nations, but it does not mean we have to follow it blindly. It does not mean that we cannot bring some precision to its position. We offer the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by adding-"through the continued
use of economic sanctions, such support to exclude offensive military
action by Canada at this time."
We felt that more time could have given us an opportunity to explore the effects of sanctions, greater diplomacy, and perhaps solutions that we had not thought about.
Our party's first option in case of hostilities was to withdraw our troops from the theatre of war. That did not mean we could not be supportive in other ways. Quite to the contrary. We lost the decision, as the House well knows, when the Prime Minister and his government decided to go to war.
Our support of the United Nations has been unequivocal. Member after member has mentioned it. We believe so much in the UN that we wanted this multinational force under its command and control.
Canada is now at war. What are we as a party doing in this situation? Are we for or against this war? Clearly, unequivocally we are against it. We have said it time and time again. Is it a necessary war? We consider it an unnecessary war at this time. Are we united with the government? In terms of providing the adequate support for our troops to ensure their safety and security, yes, absolutely. We want them to have the best in order to protect themselves against possible death and injury. Are we united with the government on the suppose^ need for war at this time? No, we are not.
As a result of the Prime Minister's decision to go to war, as some members have mentioned, Canada has now lost its innocence. Whether or not we like it, we have, according to many people in the world, become an aggressor.
People will say: "Are there times when we need to go to war?" Yes. Absolutely. Unfortunately! When our people are at risk, there is no doubt in my mind. When our country is at risk, there is no equivocation. But is it not sad that, in today's society, we have not developed mechanisms that would permit other alternatives than mass destruction?

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
We are at war. What do we do now? We must stop the war as soon as possible. There will be massive destruction of the infrastructure, of buildings, of roads, of bridges, of hospitals, and of schools. But what about the massive destruction of people? It is not only soldiers who are being killed in Iraq. There are little girls, who are not terribly different from little Canadian girls. There are young men in their teens, who are very similar to young men here. There are moms and dads. Whether you are a mother or a father here or a mother or a father in another country, surely it has the same kind of significance. There are grandparents and other relatives.
We need to seek a peaceful solution as quickly as possible. Surely this continued brutality is not the ultimate solution. We need to anticipate the "fallout" that will have been created by this war, the problems that will be there that were not there before. We all know that by supposedly resolving something we often create a series of unanticipated other problems.
What might some of those be? There will be emotional trauma not only felt by the civilians, by the boys and girls, by the moms and dads, by the seniors and by other citizens as well, but by our own servicemen and women, by our own soldiers. There will be massive economic and social instability for Iraq and for other nations.
What do we do now in terms of trying to respond to that particular difficulty? And what about the environmental impact? Have we thought of that? Have we thought of the difficulties in any significant kind of way? Are we starting to identify those now so that we can react, hopefully tomorrow or very shortly, to those particular challenges? What about the difficulties in bringing about a just solution?
We have talked of linkage. We have talked of peace conferences. We have talked of a number of other alternatives, but we need to put those on the table so that they are ready when the time comes. We need a just solution. As I pointed out before, a military conquest will not resolve those problems.
What are we going to do in terms of attempting to avert war in other troubled areas of the world? Or, having been "successful" in a military way, do we continue to operate this way, or do we come forward with
different kinds of solutions or mechanisms other than war that might work?
What about potential additional conflicts because of this war? As was pointed out, this is a massive war where there will be massive destruction and loss of lives, but there will be additional conflicts. Will other countries, for example, that feel as if they have not been treated fairly by Iraq want to seize a particular opportunity? Will Iraq, assuming that it has been devastated and conquered, carry away this feeling that it must get even? And who will be the victims of that kind of behaviour, that kind of attitude?
I suggest that as a first step in responding to those problems we need to bring the conflict under UN command.
I want to point out another major concern that I have, and that is the managing of information during conflict. It would appear thus far, if one has looked at what has occurred, that it has been open; but I wonder how true that is. Has it been "managed" rather than "open"?
Do we know the truth about what has occurred? What are the implications of that management, assuming that it has occurred, on news information for us as Canadians in the future? Not only in theatres of war, not only during conflicts, but what questions does that raise? I think there is no one here, if we want to be fair about it, who would not suggest that the military is trying to put the best light on what has occurred thus far. Why all the coverage, and why those particular scenes as opposed to others? What are the implications of that? Are we being made to think in a particular way in order to support a decision that has been made? I think so.
There is great sadness because we have not developed other mechanisms but those of war in order to resolve problems and because we have made massive and intriguing technological advances, not only with war machines but throughout society, and juxtaposed against those technological advances it seems that we have not moved forward at all on other fronts.
Let us look at our country very briefly. Poverty affects almost five million Canadians, most of whom are women. Many of them are single parents, but there are over one million children affected. We have two million people on welfare today. Over one and a quarter people are unemployed, and about 500,000 people are going to food banks. Those are the critical problems.

January 17, 1991

Government Orders
If we are having those difficulties in a country that is as rich and powerful as ours, what about those other countries in the world who have less? What about countries devastated by war or affected in a very serious way?
It is sad that our technological advances far outstrip our ability to work out problems such as poverty, employment, appropriate distribution of wealth and responding to the unemployed and those in great need.

In our society, war spells failure. It is not a solution. Of course, there will be a "winner". But this "victory" will cause in turn many new unknown problems which simply cannot be anticipated.
What is being done today, if anything, to address the serious problems which will affect not only Iraq, but other countries of the world?
As Liberals, we were prepared to go to war if we necessarily had to, for instance to protect our country and our people. But we strongly believe that war should only be considered as a last resort. Nobody should go to war without having exhausted all possible avenues.

The path of war is much travelled. We know that. Whether we talk of large wars or small ones, it is still war. It is still destruction, the loss of lives, and the maiming of men, women and children. The path of peace is much, much less travelled. It is time that we explored and started to travel the path of peace much more frequently than we have in the past.
I would hope, whatever our religious sides, we are still believers and-

-that we will all pray in our own way for peace, a new world order where problems can be solved without war, where our own children and those of the rest of the world can feel secure, where men and women will accept to work together to build a new society based on friendship, love and co-operation.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I listened to the closing remarks of my colleague. I agree with his last remarks to the effect that all of us must work together for peace, love, friendship, and harmony between nations. I would simply ask him, considering the seriousness of the situation and the fact that war has broken out and that the House is debating a resolution concerning our support for the United Nations, the former leader of the Liberal Party clearly stated, and I quote:

This is a crucial test for the United Nations and Canada must support it. This is a crucial test for collective security and Canada must support it. Does he agree with that declaration?


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments and her question.
She quoted the former leader, and that is precisely the case-a former leader. But now we have a new leader. I clearly explained the position of my new leader. As a former deputy minister, I am not one to go and tell people with whom I used to work how to handle their own affairs. We have a new leader and a policy which has been fully explained not only by the leader but also by my colleagues and myself.
The debate does not relate to the fact that Mr. Hussein has committed unacceptable acts, not al all. The fact is that war engenders war. Perhaps the war will end in a military victory, but it will create other problems.
I agree with my colleague that the problem is very serious. The diverging views have to do with the fact that we would have waited a little longer to see if sanctions might not produce the same results, or if other much more creative solutions might not have been found. That is the difference. I am not being mean when I say that. You are the government, you have the right to do what you are doing and I respect the fact that you have that authority.
But you know, Madam Speaker, and I said so at the beginning of my remarks, we had offered evidence from a wide variety of very credible people that the sanctions did affect the people and were also beginning to undermine the military infrastructure of Mr. Saddam Hussein. The government did not disprove these facts.

Government Orders
I even have a quotation from Mr. Clark dated December 28, if memory serves me right, when he wrote to his colleague to convey the same point of view. Today is January 18, which means he said that three weeks ago. Thank you for your comments and question.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member from Saint-Boniface with great interest and I would have a question for him.
We are presently debating a motion which reads:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
One thing is not clear in my mind. Did he say he was going to vote for or against this motion?


Ron J. Duhamel: My hon. colleague knows full well that I said nothing on that subject. What I did say, and I will repeat to refresh his memory, is that we Liberals support the United Nations.


Jean-C. Lapierre: And this motion?


Ron J. Duhamel: Now, wait a moment. I am getting to it. You sometimes take a little time to get to the point. I want the same privilege. I said that we Liberals support the United Nations. Indeed, I said that one can support an organization, whether the United Nations or any other, and not agree with every proposal it puts forward. I did not say whether I supported it or not. That is a surprise. I did say, though, that we had moved the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the
word "Kuwait" the following:
"through the continued use of economic sanctions, such support to exclude offensive military action by Canada at this time."
If my hon. colleague wants to know if I support the United Nations, the answer is unequivocally yes. As regards my support to the proposal, I will think about it.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I am extremely concerned that my colleague made a speech without having an opinion on this motion. I want to go back to this point.
Today, we have a few thousand servicemen and women out there who cannot afford to pussyfoot about like he seems to want to do.
Does he, as a Canadian and as a member of this House which collectively sent thousands of our fellow countrymen and women up to the front, have as much guts as these people or does he plan on pussyfooting much longer?


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. I don't dance. I don't waltz. Am I as brave as the troops? I don't know. I am not a military man, and quite frankly, I don't envy their position at all.
Sure, theoretically, you can say we sent them, but I didn't send them. You may have sent them, but I certainly didn't. Certainly not.
Am I evading the issue? I said I wanted more time to think. If you ask me what I would do if I had to say yes or no today, I would say no, without adding the amendment. I made that clear.
Do I support the United Nations? Yes, without reservations. I don't understand what the hon. member is trying to do. It seems to me his questions are not very logical. Surely, he cannot be serious.
In fact, I am rather disappointed, because I used to have a pretty good opinion of him. He is often quite fair and quite charitable. He tries to be rational and objective. I suppose like all of us, he has his ups and downs.


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, a political party that intends to run the country some day must show what side it is on. Its members must have guts and be able to say: When there are serious decisions to be made, I will set aside my party affiliation and make the decision that is appropriate in the circumstances.
What we are asking the hon. member for St. Boniface, who, by the way, is extraordinarily fluent in both official languages, is whether or not he will vote in favour of supporting the United Nations in its efforts to get Iraq out of Kuwait.
The question is straightforward: Yes or no?


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question. We do not see ourselves as a party in waiting that may come to power some day. We shall come to power, and very shortly. I just wanted to make that clear.
January 17, 1991

What about guts? I suggest the hon. member ask the people with whom I have worked whether I have guts. You want to know how I intend to vote? Wait until the vote is taken. I will cross that bridge when I come to it.
With respect, I think it is too bad the hon. member is trying to suggest things that are just not so. I thought that, especially on an issue as serious as this one, she and her colleagues on the other side of the House would have been fairer in their comments.
But don't worry, we will come to power. Don't worry, we have the guts. And above all, don't worry because I intend to vote the right way, and I know what the right way is. Just wait and see.


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, it is obviously with deep sorrow that I rise today in this House. As a member, I had never thought that I would see the day where I had to speak to a motion dealing indirectly with a declaration of a war which is already under way.
Madam Speaker, if I may as a posthumous tribute I would like to talk about my father. In 1939, at only 23 years of age, he was already a member of the Royal 22nd Regiment. My grandfather died the same year my father was called to duty. My grandmother was left with 18 kids and since my father was single, he became head of the family. Consequently he was exempted from active duty. During my childhood, after the war was over, my father always said he would have liked, even after becamimg head of the family, to contribute to the war effort and, as a Canadian and fellow countryman, to go up to the front line to fight for the fundamental rights of Canada during the 1939-1945 war.
Madam Speaker, I believe most Canadians do not understand the origins of this conflict. Since the outbreak of hostilities, I have been carefully watching the news and I would like to take this opportunity to commend the many reporters still in that region who have been doing everything they can to accurately report on the events in the Gulf. I would like to wish them the best, and my thoughts go to their families. Several citizens have called "open lines" to express their views,
Government Orders
and the vast majority of them have admitted not understanding the very nature of the conflict dividing that region of the Middle East. I think as Canadians we should try harder to understand what is going on elsewhere in the world, because those events do affect us. We have the evidence right here: there is a war and some of our fellowmen and women are in the theatre of operations ready to fight for our values and a world order.
Not only about the Middle East but also about other regions of the world, I would urge my constituents to widen their horizons by examining what is going on elsewhere so as to appreciate the motives and the historical reasons at the root of dissidence between Arab nations. As for Israel, I did go there as a member of a delegation with the Canada-Israel committee, like most other members. Those who have not yet been invited should soon be, or if they were invited perhaps they could not go. Anyway, I went there and I think it is a beautiful region. I would like to visit other countries, I have Arab friends whom I have not seen for some time and who often come to Montreal. I know them very well. I have a lot of affection for those people. I met them quite often. We stand to gain by understanding and getting to know their culture and traditions. Once I even smoked that famous water pipe which Arabs enjoy after a meal.
Madam Speaker, utterly unbelievable as well is the fact that we are watching the war on television, wondering whether it is real, whether it is a dream, or whether it is a movie. But it is reality, there are bombings, people are scared, anxiety prevails. Just imagine that you are a citizen of Jordan, of the West Bank, or of Saudi Arabia, and asking yourself whether the missile aimed at a base is not going to hit your area or your house. We can only feel very deeply for all these men, women and children who have to live under such incredible conditions.
Another thing that is different in 1991 is that women are now on the front line. Women did their share during the 1939-45 war, but they worked in hospitals looking after the sick and wounded.
But now there are 67 Canadian women involved in this war as members of the Canadian Armed Forces. It was felt that women should avoid at all costs being involved in a war, because they had to look after their husbands

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
during World War n, but today, some men are watching in front of their television sets perfectly aware that there wives are serving in the gulf area. It is unbelievable. I wish to pay tribute to the 8,000 women who are members of the Canadian Armed Forces and tell them how proud I am of their colleagues who are over there involved in all sorts of operations, handling military equipment, to defend values which are dear to our hearts, Madam Speaker.
Should the fact that Israel has chosen not to launch a counterattack be interpreted as evidence of weakness or of strength? Madam Speaker, I suggest it is unquestionably evidence of strength. By refusing to retaliate is kind for the sake of this vast land and for the sake of their fellow citizens. Israeli leaders are showing extraordinary and remarkable composure, and I hope they will show the necessary fortitude and good sense in telling their fellow citizens to be patient. In short, having visited this region and having met Mr. Shamir personally, I plead with him-I am sure he is not listening to what I, the lowly member for Argenteuil-Papineau, may have to say to him who is involved in such a serious conflict-not to do anything which could endanger an already explosive situation.
Madam Speaker, I am sure some of my constituents are wondering today: "What could I do personally to take part in this war effort? How can I help? Can I send money? Can I send food?" I wish to tell them that they can use my county office. I wish they would phone me to say: "I wish to send this or that". I promise to do everything I can to send their offerings directly through the various organizations which will look after the serious problems which will arise following this war. I feel we do not insist enough on the fact that the minute this conflict is over, tomorrow or the day after, we will find that houses have been destroyed, that there are women and	children-families-without shelters,
wounded and handicapped people with all sorts of horrors which I refuse to contemplate today, Madam Speaker.
So, if my constituents want to do something concrete, they can communicate with my office and I promise to look after this personally. For instance, if a person asked me what he or she could do personally back home, I would say: "If you are a smoker, do not smoke a package of cigarettes for two days; or if you eat sometimes in restaurants, stay home and keep the money in order to use it for the war effort." Canadian men and women
have shown over the years that they are extremely generous, not only in time of war, by also in time of peace helping hungry people in developing countries deal with their problems.
I will certainly support this motion, in spite of the fact that, like many honourable members from both sides, I feel that war is a failure. I suggest it is above all the failure of a man who decided that he would control the world. It is also the failure of international leaders who did not realize that this man was stockpiling weapons and arms. I am sure I speak for all Canadian men and women when I ask: Should we continue watching people earning a living by manufacturing war equipment which someday can be turned against us?
Madam Speaker, these are very difficult choices which the government had to make under the circumstances. But as I was saying earlier to my friend the hon. member for Saint-Boniface, making this type of decision required a lot of guts. We made this decision. I am in perfect agreement with the motions which support the United Nations and their efforts to bring this dictator to his knees.
Madam Speaker, I hope that the war will end soon, I offer my best wishes to our fighting men and women over there and their families, as well as to the journalists. They can count on my prayers.
Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. member for York South-Weston requests the floor. After the unfortunate exchanges we had about an hour ago, I think some gesture on his part would be appropriate before I recognize the hon. member for debate.
I will therefore give him a chance to make that gesture, and I hope he will do so. Otherwise I will have to recognize someone else.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, in the circumstance I would ask the opportunity to meet with you in your chambers to discuss that matter. In the interim, I would ask that you recognize me on legitimate points of order and privilege.
But at your earliest convenience, I am prepared to meet with you in your chambers to discuss the matter and then to return to the House and indicate my position on the record.
January 17, 1991


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will be replaced in the chair some time in the next hour. As I have been the occupant of the chair since 10 o'clock this morning, I think everyone will understand that I will need to refresh myself and maybe have a little bit of food.
At that time I will certainly meet with the hon. member. In the meantime I think that it would be right for me to recognize other members. Once we have spoken, we will settle the matter. I appreciate the hon. member coming forward with the suggestion at this time.

The hon. member for Saint-Denis, for questions and comments on the speech by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I hope that the exchange that will take place later today will be held according to the best parliamentary traditions that bring us together today.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau for her comments, to which I listened with great interest. I particularly appreciated the fact that she really thought about the issue, saying that she found this war difficult to accept, and explained why. That is a rarity in our parliamentary system.
She told us it was hard for her to vote on this kind of motion because there were other reasons she would have liked to include, but that in the circumstances, she would vote in favour of the motion if we ever voted on this issue. This is not a confession but it is an almost embarrassing expression of honesty.
As I said before, she really thought about the matter. She said she didn't know what could be done. There were so many people suffering. I heard all the statements that have been made since yesterday. As you know, and the hon. member said as much, she was a guest of the Canada-Israel committee. She saw part of the what the Canada-Israel committee wanted to show her. However, she is aware there is always another side to these issues. There are millions of people in the Palestinian territories that have been waiting 45 years for people like her to get up and say: It seems to me something has to be done. And that is why I want to act as a witness to what she just said, as a witness who
Government Orders
listened very carefully. I feel she has a good heart and is prepared to think about what will have to be done later on. What are we going to say once, this terrible war is over. We can go off to the crusades, to war, but meanwhile, parliamentarians have to do their job. If we don't take the trouble to think about these things, what are we doing here while the war is going on?
I will not talk about the essence of the issue, since that would be making a speech. But I want to say there must be parliamentarians. If we, as parliamentarians of the world, of the western democracies, limit ourselves to reflecting on what could be done-In that, I thank her for shaking me up, but not too roughly-people must understand that terrible tragedies will follow, not only in a small part of the world, but everywhere in the Middle East, horrible tragedies. Did we try to picture these two or three million refugees who are leaving because they are afraid, or because they are kicked out? They are living in tents, waiting for people like her try something, to find a solution or suggest something. I greatly appreciated her speech.


Lise Bourgault: If you don't mind I will first answer. I wish to thank my hon. colleague for his good words. Clearly, it is because I know people from that area that I might have a more open mind. What I was pointing out is that Canada should open itself to the world. There is war in the Middle East, but there might be wars elsewhere in the future, and if we are ignorant of traditions in those countries, it will be difficult for us to judge the reasons for those wars.
The hon. member raises an important issue and I congratulate the Canada-Israel committee for the way in which they showed us the country. I went to Bethlehem and in the occupied territories. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should do the same with other countries in the Persian Gulf area, that is visit them to try to understand them and find solutions to this problem.


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we were recalled to the House of Commons last week to debate a resolution to reaffirm Canada's commitment to the United Nations resolution 678 which authorized member nations to use all necessary means to bring the crisis to a successful conclusion.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Needless to say, all of us here have taken this responsibility very seriously. This is an emotionally charged issue for all Canadians, and for me personally I can honestly say that I have never before been called upon to take part in such a difficult decision for all members of Parliament.
In the name of peace, a brick was thrown through my constituency office window. In the name of peace, I have been told that we should bomb Iraq. In the name of peace, I wish we could all lay down our arms and use this energy to help the homeless and the underprivileged.
In the name of peace, I wish Saddam Hussein agreed with me. He can still join the forces for peace.
Since the United Nations inception some 40 years ago, I do not believe it has ever had to face such a difficult crisis. Throughout its histoiy, the United Nations has been instrumental in resolving conflicts in restoring and keeping peace in many regions. However, the effectiveness of the United Nations as an international body of dialogue is now being put to a test where its future effectiveness may rest on the outcome of this war.
I believe that everybody wants peace. I do not know of a single member of Parliament who is in favour of war. What we are really debating is the most effective method by which we can achieve a lasting peace. Of course, we should try to avoid war. I believe that is what we have tried to do since Iraq invaded Kuwait in August.
Sometimes war cannot be avoided. That was one of the lessons we learned from the Second World War. World War II also taught us that we can wait too long before we move to stop an aggressor. Chamberlain's politics of appeasement did not work in 1939.
What I feared most is that in our quest for peace we would allow Saddam Hussein to develop his arsenal of war to such a level that in a few months or a few years we would be facing an even more dangerous aggressor. How would that serve the international community and the cause of peace more effectively? I have trouble with that concept.
Before the outbreak of war I heard that at the first sign of fighting Canadian troops should pull out. But in all good conscience, how can we? What do we tell our allies,
"Get on with the job. Pm 4,000 miles behind you"? If we do, how will our commitment to upholding world order ever be valued again? How moral is it to cut and run?
Canada has earned the respect and the trust of all nations because of the effectiveness of our Armed Forces, not only in battle during the First World War, the Second World War, and the Korean War, but also because we have been an effective member of the United Nations peacekeeping forces. Our history is not one of following the United States into battle.
After the First World War, Canada has always made these decisions at home and that is the tradition we are still following today. Canada has always stood for freedom and Canada has always stood firmly with her allies wherever freedom has been threatened. We have never run away and left our allies to do our fighting for us and we are not going to do that today.
The United Nations was formed to provide a forum for resolving international conflicts. Our presence in the gulf is in response to the collective voices of 28 member nations calling for a solution to end the conflict initiated by Saddam Hussein when he used his military might to invade and occupy Kuwait.
Until Januaiy 15 we were there to monitor the sanctions imposed by the United Nations. I was always hopeful that a last-minute diplomatic effort might bring a peace, but all diplomatic efforts failed. Saddam Hussein is not interested in dialogue or negotiating and I do not think he shares our concern for peace, justice, and human life.
To those that feel we should wait a little longer for sanctions to work, all I can say is that if Canada had been invaded I think we would all be praying for freedom-loving nations to come to our aid. We would be hoping that others would send their sons and daughters to liberate us. I hope the United Nations would respond to our cries for help, as we have responded to the cries for help from Kuwait.
This is not a time for our allies to have to question our support for the United Nations coalition but, more importantly, it is a time for our young men and women in the Armed Forces to know that we are with them 100 per cent. Their families must also know that we do not take their commitment to world order lightly.
January 17, 1991

If ever there was a time to show a united front, it is now under the leadership of the United Nations. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we must follow through on our resolve and support the government decision to stand with our allies and take whatever action the United Nations forces determine necessary.
We know that our forces are engaged in a war. I say this with a heavy heart and much sadness. I have lived through war and I do not wish the experience on anyone.
I pray for peace and I pray that this war is over quickly.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with great interest. However, I noticed that she said if Canada was invaded from other countries, we would not cry to our allies.
The question I have for the hon. member is: Where was Canada when other smaller countries were subjected to aggression? Where was Canada when other smaller countries were being trampled upon by invaders? Where was Canada when Cyprus was invaded by Thrkey? Or is that another story because there is no oil there? There is no interest. We were not invited by President Bush.
Why does Canada only speak out against other aggression but do nothing? Why the double standard? Why should we not form a unique policy and stick to it? Or is it that this time we have particular interests? Or is it that at this time we have to heed what President Bush says?
Let me not be misunderstood. I am with our forces 100 per cent. But I question the double standard of the government and the party which she represents.


Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I would like to say that the United Nations was formed 45 years ago to unite countries and to assist in keeping peace in the world.
We went through quite a period of time with the cold war. The cold war kept the actions of the United Nations suppressed. It was not able to carry on and protect many of these countries. Now, with the cold war diminished, we had every hope that this body of nations would work.
I must admit at the time that Cyprus has been helped by our peacekeeping forces and that was under a Liberal government. However, I think that the United Nations is
Government Orders
still the body to work with for peace and international law and order.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today an hon. member stated, and I quote: "Too many Canadians have died in wars in history to have this country turn its back on the need for a co-operative United Nations in the Middle East. To not fulfil the obligations and initiatives of the United Nations, it would reduce Canada to a less than mediocre entity in the world community. Canadians have died for liberty, for justice, and for individual rights and the United Nations in the manifestation of the ideals for which they gave their lives."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sobeski):: Excuse me. Is the hon. member on a question or debate?


Louise Feltham: It is a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sobeski):: Well, would you please ask the question?


Louise Feltham: Mr. Speaker, in reliving some of the things that happened pre-World War II, I would like to ask my colleague if she sees a parallel between what happened in pre-World War II and what has happened over the last year in Iraq.


Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the situation that led up to the present situation is very similar to what happened before World War II. There were a lot of people who were frightened of war. They did not understand what we were getting into. I can understand that fear. It is not an easy thing to address to oneself.
However, we stood behind our soldiers and we helped them by standing behind them. It was so very important for them to be assured that we were for them, thinking of them, and praying for them. I think this is behind every situation like this.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, with what a tremendous hope this country entered 1990 and with what a shattered hope we are now entering 1991.
This is a war that was to be swift and definitive. Yesterday, on one channel that I watched as I joined other Canadians in trying to keep up with the news, Mr. Bush was reported to say last night that this war will not be short, nor will it be easy.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
I join every member of the House in feeling tremendous support for and tremendous pride in the young men and women who are representing us in the Persian Gulf. I also join with those in the House who believe they are heroes already because they are there, prepared to do what their country asks of them. But I do not agree with the role that their country is asking of them.
That does not mean, for a moment, that those of us who do not agree with the role, do not support the men and women on the front. But I am terribly concerned. In 24 hours, we have gone from President Bush pumping up the world, preparing it for a war that would be short and "clean", to saying now that we are facing a war that will not be short and will not be easy.
This war is a mistake. Like most Canadians in the last three days, I have left meetings and I have left the House, and I have gone home and been glued to the television set. That, in itself, is different for us as Canadians, when it comes to war. I have been glued to the television set hoping that I would get the news and that the next little piece of the story would tell me more about what is happening.
Like other Canadians, I have sat riveted to the television set late into the night for the last three nights and two things have struck me. First, because we are getting live reports as events unfold, we are operating on unverified information that changes from minute to minute. The whole country and the whole world is on a roller-coaster. As we saw last night as the bombs were dropping in Israel, there were all kinds of rumours about what was happening. That struck me as being the new way in which we will view the war. We will all be there with a picture window on the theatre of war every night.
But the other thing that struck me was when I was watching CNN at around six o'clock last night, was a caption that said "authorized footage from the American military". That made me think and it struck me that every night on television we see footage very quickly of other skirmishes around the world in other wars around the world. We have seen some pretty horror-filled stuff, starting with the Vietnam war, through the eyes of television.
But when I started to think about that, I had a sense that I was watching pictures of pilots getting into planes, pictures of pilots getting out of planes, pictures of troops being moved one way and the other across the desert. I was seeing a lot of file footage. I was on the roller-coaster because there is a voice background about what people think is happening. Yet, I felt that I was not being shown the truth about the impact of what had happened. I think Canadians are starting to feel that, and are going to increasingly feel that.
It is true that in the first three days we have not seen the impact, but we cannot be protected forever from that impact. If we have the technology to be there, then why should we start censoring what Canadians are going to see?
I am very concerned about the kind of sense that that is going to leave Canadians with. Today on CBC radio, when I was driving in this morning, there was a psychologist talking about how we as Canadians are responding to what is happening in the gulf.
In talking to some people I have found that they were made to feel embarrassed about feeling anxiety about this war because there are those who say: "If you think we've got it bad, think about those in the gulf."
It is normal for people faced hourly and continually with an unknown quantity like this war to feel anxiety. It is important for us as Canadians to talk about that and also to think it through to come to a conclusion about what we as Canadians believe we should be doing about this great and horrific unknown.
What troubles me about many pieces of this debate in the House is that there are references to only talking about half the story. If somebody is talking about the humanitarian side, somebody gets up and says: "You're only talking about half the story," or "You're only talking about the people in Iraq. Why aren't you talking about the people in Saudi Arabia? Why aren't you talking about the innocent victims in Saudi Arabia? How can you just talk about innocent victims in Iraq?"
In the time we have nobody can cover the whole blanket. But we do all have concerns and we are trying to cover the whole blanket collectively. If one speaker talks about innocent women and children dying in Iraq, it does not mean they do not care about the innocent women and children in Saudi Arabia. If one person speaks without mentioning Israel, that does not mean we are not terribly concerned about people in Israel.


An hon. member:: A good point.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, we do not have the opportunity in Question Period, for example, to expand our argument to be all-inclusive. We have to focus to one area. Yet we have responses, both from ministers and members on the other side of the House, suggesting that when we are trying to deal with one issue, somehow we are excluding all the others. That I think is a tragedy. It is a tragedy that the Canadian people will soon start to figure out. It is mischievous and it is deceitful. It is an example of how the government with its disdain is starting to show itself to Canadian people. It is with disdain that the government in fact has shown itself to hold Canadian people.
I would hope that as we continue this debate, late into the night to ensure that we all have an opportunity to speak, people will believe that there is not one parliamentarian in Canada who does not feel a tremendous level of patriotism and that we all are terribly concerned. We may not agree. I may profoundly disagree with the government's position on this very important issue. But because we raise issues of concern, we are not somehow less patriotic or somehow less committed to our young men and women in the gulf.
One of the things that has been missing in this debate is input from Canadian people.
The hon. member on the government side of the House who spoke before me mentioned that she was doing things in her constituency to ensure that people could make contributions to the war effort. I had hoped I would have had an opportunity under questions and comments to question her because, while it is very laudable that she is encouraging people in her constituency to bring donations and so on- and that is another piece dealing with the whole question of the war and its impact- I had wanted to ask her if she in fact believed that at this point a pause for peace would not have made a tremendous impact.
Today, the hon. member for Victoria during Question Period indicated to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that U.S. commanders had said the air raids which involved more than 1,000 sorties by American, British, French, Saudi and Kuwaiti aircraft had broken
Government Orders
the back of Saddam Hussein's air defence system, command control, and communications organization. He said to the minister that he would urge the Prime Minister to urge the United States to consider a pause for peace.
The howls from some members on the government side were shocking. Even more shocking was when the Secretary of State for External Affairs said: "We are not going to reward Saddam Hussein with a cease-fire."
Well, a pause for peace is not a reward that anybody is asking for, for Saddam Hussein. A pause for peace is a reward to the allies. It is a reward to the victims, the women, and the children in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and Israel. It is a reward for the families and friends of those who are serving Canada in the gulf, and it is a reward for the world if it ends the war.
The suggestion that a pause for peace was suggested to reward Saddam Hussein I think is shocking and despicable. It was meant only to discredit somehow what was said in a genuine way by an hon. member of the House.
I said that I was concerned and sad that Canadians have not had the opportunity to input to the government their true feelings. Indeed, many Canadians have not determined yet what their true feelings are about this war.
I was very fortunate, as we were being recalled to the House of Commons, to be at a meeting where there were a number of my constituents. I quickly took out a pen and some paper and asked them to tell me as I came back to Ottawa what in fact their feelings are about the war. These letters are a week old and many events have unfolded since then, but I do not think the sentiments of these constituents have changed.
The letters begin: "I have asked Joy Langan to tell Brian Mulroney my feelings about the Middle East crisis." That is all it says. I did not try to guide their thoughts. These are a couple of them and I would like to put them on record.
The first one, from a woman named Bernice Gehring from Maple Ridge, states:
My aunt, Dogney Anderson of Craigmile, Alberta was named the
first mother of the year because she lost her three sons to the
Second World War, all within three weeks.

Government Orders
She died in her eighties believing that Canada would never again enter into or be supporting war.
You have a responsibility to her and to all of us.
Respect our belief in peace.
Bernice Gehring
I have one from a gentleman in my riding which states:
Mr. Mulroney, I, Lou Schillaci, am a naturalized Canadian citizen. My former nationality is a United States citizen. I served in that country's armed forces from July of 1967 to October of 1971 when I received an honourable discharge from the U.S. Air Force. I moved to Canada in search of employment, having married a Canadian citizen in 1971. In August 1980,1 chose to become a Canadian. I live here proudly and one of the reasons I have stated as a reason for my decision to adopt Canada as my country is that Canada is a peaceful nation. Their army is used for peacekeeping services, not war. The problems in the Persian Gulf should be negotiated, not solved by intimidation and threats of war and Canada must lead the way to peace. Your government's position in this situation is not reflective of my own and I beseech the Members of Parliament to withdraw Canada's support for the war in an offensive manner in the Persian Gulf.
I have a lot of these. I will not try to read them into the record. I will, as I promised these people and as I promised the students who wrote letters and came to my office, have them delivered to the Prime Minister because I believe those Canadians have a right to be heard.
The night action began in the Persian Gulf, I listened to the news late into the night. About the time I went to bed, I think they were estimating that about 150,000 people had died. Later we heard it was 350,000. Some people said that was right and some said it was wrong. It is not relevant; I could not imagine the horror and the carnage that would kill 150,000 or 350,000 people. I could not conceive how horrid that slaughter must have been. I do not for a moment defend Saddam Hussein but I do believe that if there were ever a dream and if there is a dream now, that one moment of peace for negotiation or for reconsideration or resolution of this problem is worth our egos, whether it be the President of the United States or the allied forces, who stop this from continuing.
I noticed another thing on television and I am quite concerned about it and it is not the kind of thing that grabs the headlines. I noted when I was watching the air raid on Israel last night, pictures of children putting on
gas masks with gaping holes because they do not fit properly and mothers putting plastic bags over and around the gas masks and pictures of a child in a crib with ordinary plastic over the frame.
We have the technology and the money to spend a million dollars on a cruise missile. I am absolutely flabbergasted that we do not have gas masks to fit children. Maybe we have run out, I do not know. I am asking the question. Maybe the government will be able to tell us. I was just astonished by the tragedy of children having gas masks placed on them that do not fit, using plastic bags to hold it together and the trust on the faces of parents thinking that would protect them.
This war, I think, is the biggest heart-break for all of us. For every mother and father who has a child in the Middle East and for every mother and father living in the Middle East with children; for every one of us who believed and dreamed a year ago that we were, in fact, entering a new world order, that it was going to be a world in which we could talk to each other and resolve our differences, a world that could grow up and get away from the school yard style scrapping and the egotistical, "I am bigger than you" or "might is right" or all the things that were part of the old world order. For many, many of us that dream is shattered.
I will ask one more time, as I am sure my colleagues will before this debate is through, please, Government of Canada, ask the President of the United States to pause for peace, to give this war an opportunity to end before the horror continues.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully and thoughtfully to the words of the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam. I have two very specific questions to ask her, but I wanted to say a word or two before asking them.
I do not think any of us in this House could possibly fathom the horrors of war. We all share the feelings, fears and frustrations of the families and of the victims of the present hostilities in the Persian Gulf region.
January 17, 1991

While I was listening to the hon. member, I was going through my signature book and I, too, came across a letter from one of my constituents, a Mr. Raymond Dewar of Richmond, British Columbia.
I would just like to read the very short words of Mr. Dewar. He says:
Today's Vancouver Sun reported the campaign being launched by a large number of groups under the general caption of "Peace Organizations".
Similar "Peace Organizations" in Britain during the 1930s were able to intimidate the government of the day. The result was a failure to take action when action was possible. They helped to make Hitler's early conquests possible and made it certain that World War II would occur.
Certainly the United States has made mistakes in previously supplying Iraq, and certainly there are economic considerations involved in preventing the control of oil. But it is also clear that unless Iraq is stopped there will eventually be a Middle East war, probably with Jordan joining Iraq and invading Saudi Arabia and the other small states. They would then turn to exterminating Israel, and Israel would use its atomic weapons and all other means. The time to take action is now.
Please, stay firm in the resolve of the Government.
This leads me to my three simple questions. I hope the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam would take note of these, because they are quite fundamental, practical questions.
My first question is: Why were the people in Tel Aviv last night wearing gas masks? Which nation upon this earth has chosen to use poison gases and perhaps biological weapons in an attempt to exterminate another neighbouring country?
Second, while I appreciate this is a hypothetical question, I would ask the hon. member and all members opposite: Had Kuwait not happened, had the war not been started by Saddam Hussein last August 2, had the first hostilities been an attack by ballistic missiles on Tel Aviv last night, what would the position of the New Democratic Party be in such case?
Shall we sit back and wait for more missiles to fall? Would Canada stand idly by? Would we have a pause for peace today? That is a very good question that I think the New Democratic Party should answer.
Third, had the counteroffensive against Kuwait been launched unilaterally on August 3 or 4 by the United States, or had a counteroffensive been launched last night by Israel against Iraq today, what would be the plight of Israel?
Government Orders
If the counteroffensive had been launched by the United States without the support of the United Nations and this country, if the counteroffensive had been launched last night by Israel, how much greater would the possibilities have been of a huge conflagration in the Middle East, one which would be surely stopped because of the combined efforts for peace by the United Nations coalition of which Canada is proud to be a member?


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, first I have to say to the hon. minister that try as I might to write down those three questions so I could give him a response-and I am not going to invite him to repeat them again-he said three questions, the last question was about five questions in itself.
I would point out to the minister that I made a very serious speech. I asked some questions in my speech, questions about fact and they were answered by the minister by asking me rhetorical "what if" questions.


Thomas Edward Siddon: This is the time for you to answer questions.


Joy Langan: That is right. I am trying to answer but the hon. minister wants to argue with me, Mr. Speaker.
But I will stand here and I will address as best I can this long list of questions. The minister said, "Why were the people wearing gas masks last night?"


An hon. member:: Right now.


Joy Langan: That is fine. I am in the House. I am sorry, I am not watching a television monitor. I am in the House and I am dealing with my knowledge when I came in the House.
The question is, why were they wearing gas masks last night. My response to that rhetorical question is, we all know why they were wearing gas masks last night. That is a silly question. The question is: Why are there not gas masks to fit children? Why are we standing here asking questions about why are they wearing gas masks instead of saying, would it, could it be possible that there could be dialogue for peace?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Six months.


Joy Langan: The hon. minister said "six months". We had six months and nothing happened. We have struck a very, very horrific blow against the people of Iraq as well as Saddam Hussein. Nobody in this room is defending Saddam Hussein. We are saying, let us talk, let us think, let us see if we cannot at least among ourselves talk about a way to start toward peace.

Government Orders
The second question was also speculative: Had Kuwait not happened, what would the position in the New Democratic Party be? First of all, when we take positions we are dealing with positions based on what did happen, not "but if this did not happen our position would have been". Really, I think the minister is just a little bit confused in his questioning.
I appreciate that the minister sat in the House and listened to my speech. I would appreciate it very much if he would think about what was said in my speech. Rather than trying to trap and trip each other up, we should look at ways to resolve the crisis in the Middle East.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, first of all I think the last point the member made was exceptional. That is the point to be taken. We say we are going to be non-partisan but we still get into one-upmanship, or the feminine gender of that, and "we are more moral than you". It was very evident today in Question Period. Let us try to outdo one another and let us try to insult colleagues and try to make restitution or perhaps an apology later, but not likely.
In any event, I want to say that the member brought a human face, a very poignant message, so I do not think anybody should try to trip her up and say, "What about this, what about that" and what about a hypothetical question.
My question to the member is a serious one concerning the cost of war. We can look at it in two ways. First, the cost in human lives. She mentioned the numbers 150,000, 350,000, one million. Where will it end? We have no idea of the human cost as of yet. Second is the monetary cost. Some people say in the prelude to this war, in 1990, it has already cost $30 billion. The Globe and Mail cites today the Congress of the United States saying it may go to $86 billion, a $2 billion a day war. At what cost do we continue this war? Why did we start it and at what human cost, what monetary cost? Could we not spend money in a more beneficial way in this world in this present day?


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague's question almost begs the answer. Of course, the cost is
incalculable, both in this war and in a continued way, both to the Middle East, to the world, to the environment, to the people, to our parents in Canada who have children in the war, and to children in Canada who are watching television and who are frightened. The cost is incalculable. We can go all over the world and we can find places where this war is taking its toll, whether it is monetary or emotionally.
Mr. Speaker, just one last word, because I was trying to answer the three specific questions of the minister earlier. I neglected to answer his comment about peace organizations in England intimidating the government from taking action in the Second World War. He referred to his constituent's opinion. I would like to remind Canadian women today that women in Canada are taking action for peace today and we should not be frightened.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I think, like most members this week, we have entered into this debate with a very heavy heart, and obviously, as far as I am concerned, with a very troubled mind. It is not easy. Frankly, I have gone through a mental miosis this week as to just where I was going to come down.
I have to say that on Tbesday when this debate started, and this may surprise some members, I thought the Prime Minister gave one of the best and strongest speeches that he has given since he has been leader of the Conservative Party and certainly since he became Prime Minister.
Certainly during Question Period that day the Secretary of State for External Affairs, much to my surprise, because I have often differed from him from time to time, I thought again showed a grasp of the situation, and in his contribution to the debate it helped, believe it or not, affect my thinking.
Earlier in November I voted against the government motion and supported the amendments against the government motion because I honestly believed then that there was more time for these sanctions. Having heard the Prime Minister and the debate here in the House from other conscientious colleagues, I started to shift. I still wondered, but the wonderment and confusion was gradually being erased from my mind.

I am not going to go over all the horrors and cost of the war. There is a cost of war in bodies. There is a cost of war in dollars. For most of us in this House, the only reason we know about war is watching television and the Vietnam war. We have read books and we know it is not good. That is what makes it so difficult. The public out there is for peace. We are all for peace, too, and against war, every member in this House.
Obviously, as we listen to different members, we have different ways to approach those two fundamental basic issues. But to tiy to cloud the word and try to trick other people and pretend to the public that there is not a member against war and not a member for peace, that does a disservice to the member who is trying that.
Having said all that, I think the Prime Minister was correct. His speech was powerful. I slowly shifted. I said in November that I did not want my two sons to go to fight in the shifting sands of the Persian Gulf, where the sands themselves are symbolic of the shifting alliances and the shifting allies that have been there for hundreds of years and/or even in recent years. But, I started to come to the conclusion that one must look at what happened in Manchuria, Ethiopia, and Spain was not mentioned earlier, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and finally the line was drawn at Poland. After all the periods when the so-called free world in the thirties did not move, in my own mind on Tuesday I thought that "Well, Patrick, you have to face up to this, you cannot hide behind a party label because you are an independent member now''. Frankly, I thought at one time it was going to be easier if I could have hid behind a party label, but I knew I could not. I was slowly coming to the conclusion that, boy, the chips are getting pretty close. You have to support the reality that there have been mistakes. I am going to review some of the mistakes, but we do not have too much time in this debate. Quite frankly, I wasn't even going to speak.
My first point is that I have come to be embarrassed that this House is still debating this motion. What would I do if I were in the Persian Gulf serving with the forces that we have been so laudatory about. We are supporting them so well. We are all with them and the allies, and we are all against Saddam Hussein. If I were a little Canadian over there in the Sinai Desert, in Arabia, in Qatar or in any such interesting place, if I turned on the old CBC international before the government cuts it off-but that is a digression-and I heard that the
Government Orders
Canadian Parliament was in the fourth day of debate to approve a resolution to support military action and the action of the United Nations in getting Saddam Hussein, if I heard that members were still debating this mission, I would say that is the whole reason the public thinks this Parliament of Canada is full of hypocrites and out of touch with reality; especially if I found out that the United States of America, from talking to the GI Joe over there, took up the debate in its Congress, with 435 congressmen and 100 senators, for two days. Fundamentally they are the ones who are the most involved in this matter with some 400,000 troops, let alone all the dollars involved.
They came to a decision in a very divided House because their country is divided. We know what the debate was. I was amazed that the Senate, run by the Democrats, did not vote against the President and/or the House of Representatives, almost two to one Democratic. It voted very solidly for the President.
There I am a Canadian with this GI Joe, and he is saying: "What is your country doing debating the resolution? You have 2,000 people around here and three ships out in the sea". Then I find out that Great Britain voted in one day. Of course it has different parliamentary procedures but it voted very fundamentally in one day. It had its debate-and we know there are different rules over there-but with a heavy, very definite socialist Labour opposition the vote was 534 to 57.
Then we come to President Mitterrand of France which has troops in the Middle East. They in their Parliament in a day voted 523 to 43 to support the United Nations. Then we have the socialist government in Australia and the Government of Netherlands which has a lot of socialist members. Again they supported-and I do not know the numbers- the United Nations. Yet we are still debating this resolution.
Let me deal with the last part of the Prime Minister's speech. Frankly, I give the member for Vancouver Quadra full credit, as I give full credit to my former colleague, the member for Fraser Valley, for speaking from the heart. Even though they took different positions, I empathize with the member from Fraser Valley because I said some of the same things in the debate in November. I know we had anguish in that debate in November because he wanted to speak, but there were different suggestions that perhaps he did not speak then, and he had the guts to speak on this debate.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
We then had the former leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Vancouver Quadra, come into this House in a most dramatic way and make his presentation. After all the years I have been in this House it was one of the more dramatic moments I can remember, other than the Munsinger affair in the second year I was a member here in 1966. One of my colleagues was here. His name was Mr. Justice Cardin. He was standing over there and throwing out the name Monsignor affair, when he meant the bishop in Quebec. That got everyone involved in a two-day vote of privilege. That was one of the more dramatic moments that I can remember when the member for Vancouver Quadra made his presentation on such a large issue.
What are the guts of it when we shake it all down regardless of the mistakes that have happened before? George Bush and I have not agreed with all the moves of the government that have got us here. Let me turn to the speeches of the leaders on Tbesday. I listened to the leader of the Liberal Party. Frankly I respect him and like him as a person, but I got totally confused in terms of the policy of the Liberals on this motion, having known a little about Mr. Pearson and a little about the history of this country. It was listening to the leaders that day that started to switch me, but, if I had any doubt, it is when the bombs started to move and the fighter planes took off that night. That is the time when I think you have to put up or shut up.
With all the reservations, this is not the first time that there has been a multinational force in the Middle East. Good gracious, as far back as 1,000 years ago, under the cross of Jesus, the Crusades came into the Middle East and they did not solve much. In fact, one could perhaps argue that what happened then, in terms of trust and mistrust, has left behind some of the fundamental problems we find in the Middle East today.
If we have to worry about that, let us talk to that romantic character called Lawrence of Arabia and all the promises he gave to the Arabs in the First World War to try to inculcate and make sure that the Arabs fought against the Thrks and, in so doing, against the Germans. Those promises were not kept and we know other things
were done after the First World War, with the creation of the State of Israel.
All of these things are part of history and we are in a very real quicksand in this situation, with all of that history. That is why I have had the fundamental concern about going to a war in the Middle East and not exhausting all the problems of sanctions.
Then, we get into the presidential policies and/or the policies that have now been supported by all the members of the coalition, the deadline of the United Nations and no discussion until there is a full withdrawal. These are the sort of elements from the Second World War of unconditional surrender. And all historians say that it was the policy of the allies of unconditional surrender, which seemed so good at the time, that prolonged the Second World War for anywhere from two to three years, with all the consequent loss of lives and loss of dollars.
We were getting into that position. I could not understand, from reading the papers and listening, especially to CNN and other broadcasts, as we headed into the United Nations debate and on the days afterward, up until January 15, why the west, the allies, the coalition of which we were part, which is bigger by millions than the country of Kuwait which has a population of 17 million, had to worry about saving face. It is an irony that hit me. Good gracious we get into this situation of ultimatums, withdrawals, no negotiations, the charade that there is no linkage, and here we have the 17 million against all the other millions in the coalition and the irony that here that part of the world believes so much in face and we believe more in lives.
As this debate began at the first of this week, I was certainly ready to opt for the lives, forget about face, and make sure we had a conference. And whether there was a blink or a wink, to come up and say that, as I guess people tried to do in the last two or three days, after Tbesday when the bombs and planes started to fly. I could not believe it because what concerns me, regardless of the history that I have recounted and the shifting sands of the Middle East which are completely symbolic with the shifting allies you have in that country, is that with all the history I am not seduced at all. I am very concerned about the slogans about the surgical strike.
January 17, 1991

Mr. Speaker, you and I may be mild historians, but in the Civil War the slogan was "One week to Richmond". In the First World War it was "Three weeks to a victory parade in Paris" and in the Second World War it was "A Month in Normandy and Berlin by Christmas". All these things we do not even have to think about, but we should and I hope leaders thought about the situation when the United Nations last acted to get itself involved in military action, i.e. Korea. Korea moved like a piece of cake until we got to the Yalu River and started to make a fundamental miscalculation, which involved the whole Republic of China and all the consequent loss of life there that was needless and unnecessary and perhaps would not have happened, if there had not been some miscalculations. Perhaps, for different reasons, Israel, that we all looked at last night with such anguish, may be the Yalu River. Who knows? For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am most concerned indeed. I believe we have the power and the American technology for this war. There is no doubt about it.
In watching CNN this morning, the laser bombs going down air vents, tremendous, but horrible. Yet, all that technology could not even keep out radar bugs and a fellow called Noriega when the Americans visited little Panama. I hear Noriega is going to be in the Supreme Court for the next two or three years, hopefully long before this crisis is over.
We have all these things. Sometimes technology does not do it, and I am concerned. I do not believe this war is going to be over in two or three weeks. I think it is going to be much longer.
I do believe, as a lot of the experts I have listened to have said, power versus patience. What concerned me from the start in this thing-and it has not been touched much-is that it has not really been examined again in the United States, and perhaps it would be unpatriotic to do it.
The biggest problem I have with this is the American ambassador to Iraq, eight days before the invasion when she, April Glaspie, had an audience with President Saddam Hussein. Among other things, he said: "You people are weak. You cannot sustain 10,000 bodies in a battle". That shows you where patience is going to be against power and that is what we have in this crisis.
Government Orders
But the worst thing that was said is that when he, the president asked her: "What is the position of the United States with Kuwait?" She replied-and she was echoing American middle eastern policy that was examined by the subcommittee on middle eastern affairs, chaired by Lee Hamilton three weeks earlier-"that is a longstanding boundary problem between your country and Kuwait. It is an Arab conflict, and you do not have to worry about the United States on that".
That was the worst signal to send because it was eight days later on August 2, that the invasion occurred. After all of that we now are where we are today. I do agree that we should have called Parliament earlier and had a debate in a more general atmosphere when we were not in battle. There is no doubt about that. When President Bush escalated the whole equation the day after his American election by 150,000 troops, not being a great military genius, but starting to realize that this was going to be more than just a smouldering problem, I knew in my mind that we were on a one-way street. But I still thought the leaders of the alliance, for example the President and/or Saddam Hussein with others trying to influence him, would not get everyone boxed into a position so those planes had to fly.
Having said all that, what I could not understand about the Liberal position without getting too political was that in effect once hostilities were brought out, they were going to bring the people home. If it was a UN flag, it was fine; but if it was not an UN flag it was not very good.
I can tell you that long before the member for Vancouver Quadra spoke, but after I heard the Leader of the Opposition speak Thesday, I thought of Mr. Pearson. I honestly thought Mr. Pearson, who had such a contribution to make for peacekeeping and his interest in the United Nations, would be rolling over in his grave.
I know my time is moving very quickly, Mr. Speaker, but I just could not believe this: they were there to do a good job, but if hostilities break out we have to run for home.
Without going into a lot more history, some members may remember, although I will bet you that the majority does not remember, that in the Second World War when I was a little cadet I went to camp. On the first weekend pass, I ran home and told my father that I had met some of the finest men in the world. They were soldiers up in camp. It was pretty full; it was wartime. My father asked me who they were. I am not going to say the regiment, but I did give him the name of the regiment. I was a kid

Government Orders
then, 16 years old. I should not have been in cadets because I was two years too young, but I was six inches too high and got in. My father said: "Oh, son, they are very good people, but these are zombies". I said: "What do you mean, zombies?"
"Oh, those zombies. They are fighting for Canada. They enlist, but they are not to be sent overseas." That was the condition without getting into all the internal and domestic politics then.
That was the Second World War. I did not believe, until I heard the leader of the Opposition yesterday or the day he spoke, that in effect his position on the troops retreating if hostilities broke out, the Canadian forces were going to be international zombies and the laughing stock of the world.
Mr. Speaker, you are telling me that my time is almost up. I have not really got started, but I know time is precious here.
I just want to say that when the chips are down, the planes start to fly and the fighting breaks out-coming back to where I started-I cannot believe that, if I were a soldier over there hearing that we were still debating this, I would think that debate was in my interest.
Saddam Hussein may be listening to a little of this. He has heard some funny things in this Chamber, but it certainly has not upset him.
In conclusion, I want to say that I agree-because of those two speeches-with the member from Fraser Valley and, obviously, the member for Vancouver Quadra. I repeat what the NDP tried to get here. I think it would be interesting. I think we should, as a public duty, have Opposition members and other members take out their spleen on the government, because it is not in good repute.
I really think if the Gallup polls were not reflecting some of the things that they do reflect-that is reality- that this debate may not have continued as long.
Let's have the vote. Let's have it a free vote and just see where everyone stands on this.
I think I am going to conclude with what really shifted my thinking before the bombs and planes started to move because, then, I certainly did believe that we have to stand united. Otherwise, at the least, we are really going to be misunderstood.
I want to quote a sentence from the historic debate in the United States last week by Senator Danforth and by those who have watched the debate. Evidently, Senator Nunn and Senator Danforth gave the real classic contributions on both sides of the issue, and they were very close.
I came down, and I wish members would come down on this as I read it. It pertains to the United States. It is a very short quote, and this is what switched my mind before I heard the Prime Minister and the bombs:
The key to peace is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Your time is over. It is question and comment period.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Annapolis Valley whether he could give us some quotes that might have taken place in the debate in the U.S. Congress that he feels might further elaborate upon the position that he was getting to.
I am wondering whether the hon. member would have any notes.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, naturally, I am very appreciative of the perception of the hon. member for throwing that question to me.
I would just like to read the quote of Senator Danforth. I think it is fundamental:
The key to peace is maintaining a credible military threat, and this is precisely the point our pending votes will address. I cannot vote to deprive the president of the credible threat of force. It is indeed a supreme irony that it is only through the threat of force that a stable world can be maintained. But that is an irony that we have recognized ever since World War II.
In conclusion, to supplement that quote-I do have a minute or so on the answer-this is what has happened this whole year with the walls coming down and eastern Europe opening up. It was because there was a credible military force- NATO and the allies-that these things happened.

Some of the same people who are wanting to take a pause now and who always want to talk about peace, and not of military deterrent, were taking that same position in some of those times.
What really boggles my mind is that I understand the importance of the UN flag, but this position of some people and perhaps the Liberal position at the moment-I do not know what its position is-is to take the exception and say: "Oh well, if the coalition under the UN resolution was under the blue UN flag, that would make it all right."
Since the UN flag is not there, they can stand back and talk about more time for sanctions. This, to me, is not very logical. The last time the UN flag was used, it was a blue flag. There was an American commander, General McArthur.
I bet you some people in the House, if we debated that, would perhaps have been against the punitive UN commander whom we knew was going to be the commander: General McArthur.
Here, we have many UN resolutions. The allies under that UN resolution had many problems in coming to that, with all the dangers in that area. I do not believe that this war is going to solve the problems. I think we are going to be left with all those historic problems unless we do have that conference and we do admit the linkage.
But to try to hide behind a vote, to delay a vote, and to hide behind the argument, "Oh well, more sanctions", when bombs are flying, and not to come up with a vote to support our troops there now, and by this interesting specious argument of UN resolution, yes, but no UN flag, no, when in effect we now have an American commander in the Middle East without the blue flag but UN resolution, I just cannot understand it.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I will give a chance to others in a minute. I would just like to say I listened with great attention to the good speech made by my hon. friend. Historically it is never bad to say that I had the honour of knowing and sitting with his hon. father in this House so many years ago. I can recognize a great talent when I see one. The member has delivered quite an effective speech I must say. I would just like to be on record to say that I am delighted to see that some members, I may vote differently I do not know yet, agree that linkage and an
Government Orders
international conference are the types of things that we should have looked into a hell of a long time before we reached the very sad time we are going through.
I will read again his speech. He went from I would say almost around the clock in his emotion on that debate from one position to another. To me, this is what Parliament is all about. This is what independency should be all about, regardless of how we will vote on this issue. I appreciate very much what I just heard.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate those words coming from the dean of the House who also served here when my father was here. I know we do differ from time to time on specific votes, but we do not differ in the respect that we both have for this institution and for the respect that you can have for members even though you can violently disagree with their positions.
If I may, I forgot to get this on the record, Mr. Speaker, because, again, I have gone on a roller coaster this week, as a lot of other members have. If it were not President Bush, it was President F.D.R. where polls are so fundamental, television is so real and there, that it makes it even more difficult perhaps for trying to pull together a coalition and all the things that are necessary when you get involved. I know we have to admit that those are things in the past now. We are in this battle.
I am all for the new order but unfortunately we have new orders but we have old dictators. That is perhaps part of the historic problem.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the member from Annapolis on his speech, not because we are seat mates but because, as the member from Montreal indicated, it was an excellent speech.
The resolution we are debating is:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
I agree fully with the member that it would be almost preposterous for us to have a vote on this. Which member in this House could find himself or herself voting against a resolution like that. I may be wrong but I think a lot of members who were for sanctions before would find now, since we are in the thick of the fray, that to vote against it now would seem to be a knife between the ribs for the men and women who are serving on behalf of Canada in that part of the world.

Government Orders
I wonder though, and this is the question to the member, whether there may be an unintended benefit to this debate, which is that it gives the chance for members to make points as time goes by. Had we adjourned yesterday, and we did not, thanks I believe to the member for Calgary Northeast, the House would have been out of session. I think it is important that the House stay in session, even if members get up every day and give speeches on some aspect of the war or on latest developments. I wonder if the member might not agree that is the reason why this debate might reasonably continue practically indefinitely so that members from all comers of the House may speak. It seems nonsensical now to have a vote on it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. seat mate here. I know he shares many of the thoughts all members have this week.
I agree. I think if the House were to adjourn, the public would say the members are out for another holiday, even though we have come back before February 18. There is a real problem here. At the moment there is no business on the Order Paper. Realistically, I do not know what this House of Commons is going to be doing legislatively. But, yes, it does afford an opportunity for Questions Periods. The big point is this debate. I do not know if I agree with my hon. friend that all members will be voting for this resolution. I think the resolution should be put and the debate should be over with so that the Canadian in the Middle East is not embarrassed by other nationals asking what their Parliament is doing. "Is it still debating? You have a great bunch of wierdos. They cannot get together. They all preach United Nations support. They all say they are against Saddam Hussein. They all say they are for peace and against war. What the hell are they talking about?" Get the debate over, have the votes and then I do agree that between House Leaders there has to be an opportunity for the public to be involved.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I too think that this House should vote on this motion. We are three days into this war and I think that once all hon. members have had an opportunity to express their opinion that the question should come to a vote.
As the previous speaker mentioned, I think our Canadian soldiers and I am sure the international community will be looking for a signal as to just where the Canadian Parliament stands on this important issue.
There are some important principles involved in this debate and this whole question. They began with the invasion of Kuwait in August last year. That was an unprovoked attack. All members of this House, I am sure, agreed with the Canadian government when it condemned that invasion. At the same time, I am sure many members of this House did not believe that the condemnation by Canada or, indeed, other peace loving countries would be enough to reverse the flow of events in the Middle East. Condemnation alone was not going to work.
I believe it was very proper, therefore, that Canada in conjunction with many other countries of the United Nations invoked sanctions. Sanctions can do a number of things. I can tell you that at the time Canada invoked those sanctions, I had some doubts as to whether they were going to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, but I did believe it would put pressure on Iraq and hopefully that pressure, along with pressure from other countries in the world would convince them to pull out of Kuwait. At the time I did not think this would reverse the course of events. I am not making a categorical statement that sanctions can never work or should never be tried again. Of course they should be. Just as a condemnation by Canada the day after the invasion of Kuwait should be tried, so should sanctions.
The only question now is whether we should move beyond sanctions and support our soldiers and, indeed, all those fighting pursuant to the United Nations resolution. Should we give them our support now in forcibly expelling Iraq out of Kuwait? Obviously, we have different opinions and they have been heard in this House. There have been a number of reasons put forward, usually several in one argument as to why we should forcibly try to expel Iraq from Kuwait.
In a number of those arguments, I have seen individuals make the point again and again about the boundaries of Kuwait. I quote from one newspaper article which said that "the boundaries of Kuwait were arbitrarily set by a colonial power," as if that somehow lessens the legitimacy of a particular country.

I would be very hard pressed to come up with more than a handful of countries whose boundaries were not either set, influenced, or in some way shaped by colonial powers. Indeed, Canada's boundaries were shaped and set by a colonial power. That gives no other country in this world justification to invade Canada. That does not call into question the legitimacy of this country, nor should it for the State of Kuwait.
As well, I have had a number of people say to me that this is all about oil. I have had letters on that. Indeed, I was approached in church one day by someone who said that this was just about oil.
From my point of view, I do not support the United Nations resolution, nor have I supported the actions of this country involved with this because of oil, nor should anyone ever commit Canada or ever suggest that is the reason why Canada would go to war, because of oil.
While the lack of oil causes some discomfort for Canadians in terms of higher prices and I know that it has a very bad effect on the Third World in increasing prices, that should never be the justification for war.
There are those who continuously hammer and make the point about United States' leadership and the position of President Bush and the American Congress and that somehow this calls into question the legitimacy of trying to force Iraq out of Kuwait. I disagree with those individuals completely. Their dislike of either the American administration or the United States should not in any way cloud their opinion as to what is right and what is wrong. That has nothing to do with it.
I appreciate the fact that the United States is supportive of this. I appreciate the fact that the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and others are supportive of this. But, regardless, this does not change the principle as to whether or not Iraq should be in Kuwait.
Hon. members have made the point again that, if Canada is so worried about Kuwait, how about other examples? To that extent, I guess I agree with them. I believe the world did fail Ethiopia in 1936. We failed Ethiopia and we failed Czechoslovakia a couple of years later. I agree with those individuals who recognize and
Government Orders
understand the fact that the cold war for almost all of my lifetime paralyzed the world and the United Nations into doing what is right. I would only suggest to them that, yes, we have made mistakes in the past. It does not mean that we have to make mistakes in the future.
One of the critical things as to whether or not we should go beyond words and sanctions was contained in a report that was released by Amnesty International a few days before Christmas. I believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs tabled that report in the House of Commons within the last couple of days. I will refer to a news release which I would be happy to table because I intend to refer to it. It contains comments by Amnesty International, which I believe has no particular axe to grind other than to get at the truth, and it helped to convince me that we are dealing with a country that will not listen to sanctions, words, or condemnation by the United Nations or any of its members.
This is the news release that was released one week before Christmas, December 18, 1990. According to the investigations of Amnesty International, they detail how "Iraqi forces have tortured and killed many hundreds of victims, taken several thousand prisoners and left more than 300 premature babies to die after looting incubators from at least three of Kuwait City's hospitals. The report catalogues 38 methods of torture used by the Iraqi military, including cutting off people's tongues and ears, shooting them in the limbs, applying electric shocks to their bodies and raping them." It goes on to state: "Time and again we were told that the most common way soldiers killed people was to take the victim to his family's door-step, have his relatives identify him and then shoot him in the back of the head."
What is interesting about this is the Iraqi government never denied it. I was waiting for some sort of indication that this was not true or that they disputed this. I never saw that.
Any country that is prepared to invade another and start looting incubators and indiscriminately killing people is one that should be met with the force of Canada and every other peace-loving country in the world.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I agree with others who have spoken in the House that war is ugly, hideous, and horrible. Many people lose their lives.
At this point, the war in the Persian Gulf is but a few days old and the full extent of the damage is not known. I am not speaking of physical damage. We know that there will be considerable physical damage done to Iraq, now Israel, and perhaps other countries in the Middle East.
Does the hon. member recognize that there are hundreds of thousands of people who could lose their lives? I am talking about innocent Iraqi civilians, Israeli civilians, and civilians in other countries in the Persian Gulf who may lose their lives. Indeed, we know now that a significant number have lost their lives because of an international principle; that principle being that an aggressor should not be rewarded.
Has the member approached this very serious matter from a human perspective to understand what it may have felt like for innocent Iraqi civilians living in Baghdad, just as the innocent Israeli civilians living in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, when the bombardment started and as the bombardment continues? Does the hon. member feel that these hundreds of thousands of people who will lose their lives-and we do not know the full extent of the human damage that will be done until the war is over- really care about international principles?


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon. member. He began by asking if I realized that, in pursuance of this international principle of the United Nations, that one country cannot arbitrarily invade another, and do I understand that people will be killed.
If we take that comment of his to its logical conclusion, then we are hamstrung, because we could never act. We could not have acted in 1939 because the same question could be posed. He could have said to me: "Mr. Nicholson, don't you know that if you try and stop Adolf Hitler now that individuals would be killed?"
I guess I would say to the people of Iraq that they should have been putting pressure on their government for these last six months to change course.
The hon. member is asking me from a human perspective. I guess I put myself in the position of those parents whose children have been violated in Kuwait, through no fault of the Kuwaitis. Kuwaitis were not at war. They did not provoke the war. They had done nothing to have this inflicted upon them. I guess I look at it from their point of view, the indiscriminate killing that has been taking place in Kuwait, and I say that should be condemned. It should be stopped. The international community should come together as one to drive those invaders out of that country.
That is the human perspective that I bring to this and I would ask the hon. member about the position of his party, that we should get out of there now. This is a bad one, a very bad one, and I hope that he would rethink that and say: "Look, we are here. We could get this job done. Let's get it done as expeditiously ask possible." That is possible. If this coalition sticks together, we can get this job done and I think that Israelis, Kuwaitis, and I am sure people of that part of the world will say: "This world is a better place to live in if Saddam Hussein is not a threat to this region."


René John Soetens: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask a question about the orders of the House.
The member who just asked a question earlier today used some very unparliamentary language and processes in the House. Madam Deputy Speaker was in the Chair and she indicated he would not be recognized until such time as he had done the parliamentary thing.
My question to you is: Does the position of the Speaker apply, or is it the position of the individual Speaker in the chair who is going to decide whether the member is going to issue an apology to the House for the manner and methods in which he spoke to the Chair?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have to admit that I am not aware of any such ruling on the part of the Deputy Speaker. I will inquire.
The member for York South-Weston was the only member who stood up for questions and comments and, since I was not aware of the incident just pointed out to me, I had to apply the rules and recognize the member.
January 17, 1991

That being said, I appreciate the comment and will inquire as to what should be done. If need be, I will follow up on this. I know the member in question met with the Deputy Speaker.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, like many other members of the House and like many other Canadians, I have watched the events of the last 72 hours with the range of emotions, with the heart-pounding, with the adrenalin coursing, and with the sense of fear and foreboding about what this war might have in store for us as Canadians, and also what it might have in store for the world.
I had a prepared speech, Mr. Speaker, and I had a clear position prepared in advance of the decision of the United States to attack Iraq. The events of the last 72 hours have rendered that speech and, in fact, this resolution redundant. They have rendered it redundant because, like it or not-

Canada is at war.
While I am sure during this extremely emotional and difficult period for all of us it would be pretty easy for some of the government members to poke holes in the positions that have been taken by opposition members over the last number of days, I, speaking as an opposition member, personally. Have gone through the range of emotions and I have to tell you that whatever the outcome of this war, and I fear the outcome will be felt for many years to come, it was the wrong time. It was the wrong time because, in the emerging of a new world order, we did not give the opportunity for economic strangulation and for economic sanctions to work. Yes, it was the wrong war. And yes, last weekend I marched in my own community, side by side with members of the human race, representing Canada, Israel, Iraq and Kuwait, none of whom wanted this war.
Government Orders
The member for Niagara Falls spoke earlier about the atrocity of taking a baby from an incubator. Who, in his right mind, could ever condone such atrocity? But the atrocities that we are potentially about to witness will be wrought upon innocent victims. I do not speak only of women and children; there are innocent men, women and children on all sides of this conflict who will die as a result of the decisions of men to take us to war. I marched on the weekend with an Iraqi constituent in my riding who said to me that Saddam Hussein is crazy. That is why this person left that country. He could not have the input into direct foreign policy that he would like to have in a democratic country. But he has brothers there who have children and he has cousins, all of whom are under potential threat of imminent and innocent, individual death. In a war, there are no winners and no losers.
I think about the First World War when my grandfather watched his own father die on the field of battle not knowing it was his father and what that did to him. He was given six hours to live, his body was riddled with shrapnel; that was in the First World War. There is no war in which you have long-term winners and losers and one of the emerging truths of the 1990s was that we were supposed to be entering a new world order, where civilized countries would find civilized ways to deal with human nature. We are seeing that civilization break down, not only in Kuwait but also in Lithuania, Latvia, in the Baltic States, and in many other parts of the world, where the international recourse has not been, at this stage, to war.
All those arguments can be made and they can be made in a very direct way. But the fact of the matter is that the Canadian government has committed Canadian men and women to the battlefield. My sister-in-law may be called up. As a former air force doctor, who retired from active duty last year, she is still on the list of recall and may be called over. I know how frightened she is and how she dares not pick up the phone when it rings, in case she is called up. I know as we speak how powerless we are in this House to affect the nature of this war. There are thousands of Canadian families who are looking to us, as members of Parliament, for support for their loved ones.
How abhorrent war is, how much I have opposed this government's and, indeed, the American government's early use of force when, in fact, the avenue of sanctions

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
had not been exhausted. I cannot in good conscience turn my back on the Canadian men and women who have been sent over there to represent our country in a conflict that could have unlimited and continuing implications.
While government members may probably experience the same doubts, fears and forebodings that we feel on this issue, it seems to me that this particular resolution at this stage is redundant. Indeed, under the circumstances, perhaps the wisest course of action would be a withdrawal of this resolution I agree that we cannot send a message to our women and men in the Armed Forces that in any way equivocates our support for their actions.
Whatever we as individual members and indeed as parliamentarians thought about the reasons-some legitimate, some illegitimate-that conceived this call to war at this stage we must send a message of full and unequivocal support to those women and men whose lives are at risk; to those families; children the age of my daughter, watching their mothers and fathers go off to war; and also to those children on all sides of the conflict who will undoubtedly lose their lives as a result of this war.
I cannot give any lecture on the military nature of what our actions should be from this point forward. I am no military expert. Perhaps one of the greatest feelings that we have felt in this Parliament is a sense of powerlessness. International events are unfolding so quickly that we in this chamber or in the other place really have virtually no influence on the agenda that may unfold.
We huddled around our television sets last night as the retaliatory bombs came forward and we saw the fear ingrained in the eyes of that CNN reporter in Saudi Arabia who feared the possibility of a nerve gas attack. We saw the fear gripping a nation, the nation of Israel which has used, I believe, calm reasoning in deciding not to retaliate. I am not sure that under the circumstances I would have been as calm and as reasoned.
But there are ways that we in our own way can influence this agenda. I think it is important in the context of the House of Commons that we continue to press the government with its allies to try and find a peaceful solution. We must press on the issue-as I did this morning-that not only are there Israeli children who could very likely be killed in this conflict, but there are Palestinian children in the West Bank, in the Gaza.
There are Iranian children; Iraqi children and Kuwaiti children. Perhaps in an as non-partisan way as we are able, we can continue to keep the government agenda and an agenda for strength through peace.
In the longer term, Mr. Speaker, our objectives have to be to re-examine the notion of civilization in the context of the new world order because as the bombs drop-and so they will on Iraq-we are seeing not only destruction of Iraqi installations, but also the destruction of one of the world's most ancient civilizations.
The very notion of statehood when in the Middle Ages the people agreed to the state of serfdom, they did so because their lords were to provide protection. The very notion of civilization and statehood has been developed so that we could, in fact, protect ourselves.

But in the national context, Mr. Speaker, we were able to do that, if we look at Europe, for instance. Until 1945, Europe had always been at war, 2000 years of war. But after 1945, after experiencing the horrors of war, as they were experienced in Japan, from that moment onwarde they realized that a civilization's real progress is not predicated on war but on peace. And that may be why, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a new order in Germany, because they realize the Berlin wall was useless.

I think it is about time that, in the over-all context we examine what we mean by "new world order". Why is it that in national and individual contexts we have been able to develop for ourselves, by which people can solve problems in a legitimate, non-aggressive way, that very formula that has escaped us once again in the international arena?
The First World War was supposed to be the war to end all wars. Yet, within a very few short decades we moved into another war.

Mr. Speaker, who would have thought that we, in Canada's 34th Parliament, would be here to vote on war? I could never have imagined that. Who would have thought that my three year old daughter, when I was feeling really down and disappointed yesterday, would say: Mom, is the war making you so sad? She is not yet four, Mr. Speaker. But what can we give our children?
January 17, 1991



In the long term, we have to look for new solutions of diplomacy and economic sanctions that justly recognize that the problem of the Middle East is not going to be solved merely by eliminating Saddam Hussein.
There will be other Saddam Husseins. With the coalition as fragile as it is, if it splits apart, the potential for international disorder is even greater as a result of actions that have been taken in the context of the United Nations.
How do we look to this new world order?
I would like to speak for a moment to what I perceive to be, not only in this House but across the country, the so-called gender gap of war. It has never been my intention as a person in politics who happens to be a woman to suggest that, as women or men, we have the divine right to see the world differently.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if you discussed with the women members on all sides of this House you would find, as you would if you spoke with women across this country, that there is a radically different way with which we approach this issue of war.
I do not think a woman leader would claim that we were going to go in and "kick ass". I think that is the kind of terminology that belies a misunderstanding of the need to exercise all avenues of diplomacy before moving to war. In that context, I truly believe that women and men who are out there on the battlefield and also those here in Canada must begin to share more our collective wisdom and feelings.
I think you will see, Mr. Speaker, over the course of this debate that women in this House have risen perhaps more emotionally than many of the men.
Yesterday we heard the hon. member for Mount Royal and the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands speaking with eloquence and from the heart, but in a way that brought a particularly individual perspective to the issue. I happen to believe that for all the emotions we share, for all the feelings we have and for all the reasons that we have to be together on this one, it is so critical that in
Government Orders
the arena of war we take a step back and reflect upon the real meaning of war. Some will criticize me for this, but I would like to think that perhaps the nurturing and creation of life which is unique to womanhood has given us a perspective which makes us much less likely to send our sons and daughters to war.

I say that, Mr. Speaker, not because I think the feminine perspective is better than the male perspective.
I say that because of the way women have been socialized, with their ability to create life, they are far less inclined to take a life.
I think that in the new world order, whatever the outcome of this war-and it is expected to be short with as little loss of life as possible-we must learn from this perspective. We must learn from this ability to create life that a new order, a new civilization cannot call itself civilized if killings and wars are the way we solve our problems.
Mr. Speaker, that is the duty of this Parliament, because obviously-a few members in this House are not going to affect the course of events taking place in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.
Mr. Speaker, if we as parliamentarians, if Canada and the rest of the world want to recreate some of the hope we had at the end of the Cold War in 1990, we should have chosen new instruments to improve our ability to settle our international problems, whatever they may be.
Mr. Speaker, that is why, although I hate war, as I hate the fact that innocent people will be killed on all sides, I believe that despite the fact that I deplore this government's decision to involve us in this war, we are in it, nevertheless.
We must be prepared to give our full support to our men and women who are over there, and who are working for us all.
But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, in this House we must focus on the most important question of all which is the creation of a new order that shares the responsibilities, aspirations and hopes of all citizens of this world.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have probably heard more speeches from that hon. member than any other member in this House. I say that because of course I think most members will know that I have known the hon. member probably longer than any other of our colleagues here. I have to tell her that whether she realizes it or not, she has probably given the best speech she ever has given. I think that the tone of the House listening to her is a testimony to that. The House, as all members will know, but Hansard does not record, was dead silent listening to the member's remarks, and with good reason.
I want to tell her as well that when she spoke of the powerlessness that we feel as members, that if her discourse today is rewarded, as it should, that it should have an influence on members of this House in terms of what their position is on this issue. I say that from the bottom of my heart.
I want to raise with her this whole business of the powerlessness that we feel as legislators on this issue. It is one that I share, and I raised it in my speech yesterday. We are debating a motion which basically asks us if we are in favour of United Nations' motions which have already been placed into effect and have already been caused to happen; in other words, the motion is redundant. Even if it were not redundant, the motion was structured in such a way and presented at such a time that if you voted for it, you were voting in fact for war and if you voted against it, you were voting against the UN.
I find it deplorable that this issue, as gut-wrenching as it is, was presented to this Parliament in that way. Instead, we should have been presented a motion that asked us point blank, before the hostilities began: Do we or do we not, as a country, want to participate in those hostilities when they do begin and if they do begin? I would have still voted no to the proposition. But I think I had a right to hear the proper question, as opposed to the one that we did hear.
Second, now that the hostilities have begun, I do believe that what we should be asking, notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with what has been done, is
whether or not we support our forces which have already gone over there, not whether or not we should be voting on a motion which is redundant and which was wrong even before it was redundant.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I will take the member's compliments as intended. It is true that the member and I have spent a lot of years together and we have fought a lot of wars, but none of them have been of the nature of this war. They have all been political wars.
I would have to say that notwithstanding the member's comments and notwithstanding the nature of the resolution when it was first presented, I think the responsibility is upon all of us right now to put our political battles behind us, to cease and desist from the natural temptation to score political points on this particular issue. I think in that light it is important that this resolution be withdrawn because I think it is a redundant resolution which, whatever the vote, is going to send potentially the wrong signal to our armed forces.
In the light of the delicate nature of the situation right now, I think we would be far better off to speak to a resolution upon which we could all unanimously agree to give our full 100 per cent support to those Canadian women and men who have been asked by their country to serve in our interest in the Persian Gulf. That is why I hope that this resolution will be withdrawn and we vrill be able to bring forward a resolution that will meet the test of unanimity of this House which is obviously going to be very crucial for the morale of those soldiers who are over there fighting on their behalf.


Mr. J.-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I thank and commend our colleague from Hamilton East. I would like to make a comment and ask her a question, if I may.
The member for Hamilton East said that, in war, there are no winners and no losers. I suggest, referring back to what is being taught in our administration schools, you are either in a win-win situation or in a win-loose situation, and in the latter case, there are always loosers. Unless both sides win, they both end up loosing. I thought I had heard the hon. member for Hamilton East say that there were no winners and no loosers. She may wish to take this opportunity to make a correction.
January 17, 1991

My second comment, which is also a question, deals more directly with her position on the issue. We know where she stands as a woman. It is indeed pretty unusual-and she mentioned the risk of giving rise to criticism-to talk about the value, and more particularly about the fundamental difference between male and female. So that everything is clear, I wish she would use the time she has left to reaffirm the fact that recognizing individual differences does much more for personal growth as well as that of nations than playing on similarities and that relying too heavily on the concept of similarity involves a notion of levelling the base. So, by recognizing individual differences, we do not necessarily address what must be something else than levelling the base.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Hamilton East has one minute and a half to answer.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was quite right when he said that there is an exception to every rule. For instance, when comparing men's and women's different attitudes, a colleague mentioned Mrs. Thatcher. It is clear that to a certain extent, Mrs. Thatcher was not typical of the sensitive individuals I was referring to earlier. Having said that, I suggest it is important to recognize our differences. I have always insisted on the differences between Francophones and Anglophones, men and women.
As far as winners and losers are concerned, it is true that we may win in the short-term if Saddam Hussein, confronted with the forces of the United States and their allies should withdraw. It would be a short-term victory. But what about the long term? I mentioned my grandfather because I saw how his life changed following World War I. We had come out the winners, but my grandfather remained a loser. He could never find a job because he was unable to work, as a result of the injuries he had received in the service of his country. Mr. Speaker, there were also losers on both sides following the Vietnam War: traumatized Vietnam veterans, broken families, dead children. In such a context, in the long run, there are neither losers nor winners in a war, just a forum from which to start a new war. That is what I am concerned about: If we succeed in destabilizing the Middle East, there might be winners in the short run, but in the long run, what will happen to that international forum which
Government Orders
was already shaky before Saddam Hussein started this war?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Outremont has the floor for the next ten minutes.


Jean-Pierre Hogue: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to use some of my time to reflect on the comments made by the hon. member for Hamilton East. Of course, there is never a winner and a loser in a win-win situation where the adversaries must either both win or both loose.
Mr. Speaker, I did not think I would have to take the floor. My position was known. I had other means to keep in touch with the people of Outremont.
Recent events force me to speak. I want to address my remarks to the Jewish community of Outremont, Quebec and Canada to offer them my sympathy and my prayers.
Hon. members know that the riding I have the honour to represent is home to people from various ancestries and that multiculturalism is thriving in that small microcosm. But as I said, I think it is important and necessary for me to rise and offer these people my sympathy and my prayers. Very humbly as well, Mr. Speaker, I would extend my sympathy to the people of Israel.
If I may I should like to comment on the dynamism of the situation we are experiencing. From the onset I felt-and I still feel-that there was no hesitation and that the position had to be clear. The Prime Minister made this statement in the House on January 16, and I quote:
The Time has regrettably come therefore to act in the interests of preserving world order and in safeguarding the effectiveness of the United Nations. A failure by the world community to act would have undermined the United Nations, turned a blind eye to naked aggression, condoned violations of international law and encouraged other potential aggressors to defy world opinion in the pursuit of their own criminal ambitions.
Allow me to quote him:

"The time has regrettably come therefore to act in the interests of preserving world order and in safeguarding the effectiveness of the United Nations. A failure by the world community to act would have undermined the United Nations, turned a blind eye to naked aggression, condoned violations of international law and encourage, other potential aggressors to defy world opinion in the pursuit of their

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
own primitive ambitions. If Canada had stood aside, we would have
betrayed our own national interests, repudiated our own
responsibilities and dishonoured our own traditions."

Mr. Speaker, this is why I thought there would be no need for me to rise and that my position was known as a stong supporter of the motion now before the House.

Entering a war is never easy, at least not for Canadians. We are by nature a passive people and we have a long history of promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes, both at home and abroad. Why do we value stability? Why are we recognized internationally as people who cherish peace? It is partly due, in good part, to our multicultural landscape. Canada was founded by immigrants and new immigrants continued to inject new ideas and new vitality into our society. But we learned long ago that we had to be sensitive to each other's needs in order that Canadians of different origins could live peacefully and side by side. We had to be willing to listen and talk, negotiate and compromise, and as a result we have become "experts" in resolving conflicts with a minimum of violence.
We have another principle which has allowed us to be seen as a peace-loving nation. It is our unfailing support for the United Nations, an organization that stands for peace. Canadians have to create a United Nations as we know and we have continued to support it financially, materially and militarily at a level which far exceeds our relative strength in the world.
Although the United Nations is a peace organization, it recognizes that sometimes force must be used against the most blatant acts of aggression. This is perhaps not easy for many of us to accept since the cold war prevented the UN from exercising its peace and security function for so long. But the principle of collective security against aggression is at the core of the United Nations charter. To deny this fact is to reject the very raison d'etre of the UN and to accept the law of the jungle in international affairs.

Mr. Speaker, life is not what it used to be. Everybody says so, or at least that is what we hear practically everywhere we go.
Older members of society like to talk about the good old days, when everything was so much better. According to them, there were no wars, no murders, no thieves. Not exactly, but there was a lot less.
In any case, the facts say otherwise. It seems this is not true at all. There have always been wars, there have always been murders, there have always been thefts and storms and people dying.
We have every reason to believe that today, life is more satisfying and more enriching than it has been for many centuries.
The leisure society appeared a few decades ago, because we had attained a more acceptable standard of living. If the leisure society could have appeared earlier, it would have done so, and earlier generations would have benefited.
As this leisure society evolved, society became more compassionate as our social conscience became more sophisticated.
Mr. Speaker, in a family there are all kinds of personalities. Some are more aggressive, others are more passive, while others are more creative.
Many families, especially Quebec families which tended to be large, had what was commonly referred to as a black sheep. This was a child that often just did what it felt like doing, unlike its brothers and sisters.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is running out, and I want to thank you for letting me know. I will have to conclude. What I meant is that the child that was considered the black sheep would get special attention from the other children. Often, one of the smarter siblings was able to discipline this child.
I use this particular example because the present situation is actually just that: one of the children of our international community has asked the other children of the family to take care of what is considered to be a black sheep.
January 17,1991	COMMONS
And since you asked me to conclude, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I support this motion without any hesitation, and I do so with my knowledge of personal and group psychology and with the honesty I also found among my fellow members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Five minutes for questions and comments. The hon. member for Saint-Denis.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the last words said by the hon. member for Outremont. He said: "I give my full and entire support and I do so knowingly as a psychologist and expert on human issues".
As you see, I am quietly preparing part of the speech I will probably make, I am not sure. But that is the main aspect I intend to discuss in my speech.
As an expert on human issues-and I agree-would Dr. Hogue be so kind as to tell me, while these military operations are going on against the unacceptable invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, at a time when a number of nations have decided to start a military operation, and I will not comment on that in my question to the hon. member-
However, doesn't he think it is time to send some messages as soon as this conflict is resolved militarily, it is obvious that the people who are now trying to get Saddam Hussein to surrender or withdraw will win, I think that is pretty clear. Isn't it time for Canadian to send a message? To, all those people who are in desperate straits in that part of the world? I am thinking of our friends in Jordan, because I remember what our Prime Minister said when His Majesty King Hussein came here to address the House.
I remember what was said by the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada when President Herzog of Israel came and also addressed the House on that very spot.
There are other questions we have to start thinking about. And we will have to do that before these people become so desperate they get involved in disastrous schemes-I am thinking of those 1.5 million Jordanians of Palestinian origin, 60 or 70 per cent of the population of Jordan, where hatred now looms so large that every solution is doomed. And the same applies to the people in the northwest territories and Gaza, who say there is no hope left.
Would it not be time for Canada, while the government does its thing, and I will not pass judgment on that-to send messages that Canada is determined to get

Government Orders
this over with as soon as possible but we then have to take care of all these loose ends?
The hon. member who is an expert on human psychology is aware that these loose ends have been around for quite some time in the Middle East.


@Acting Speaker: The hon. member for Outremont has two minutes.


Jean-Pierre Hogue: I want to thank the hon. member for Saint-Denis, in the riding next door to mine, for a question that is intriguing but difficult to answer.
I will try to marshall all the intellectual honesty I possess, and of course this includes my deeper feelings on the subject.
Generally speaking, the answer is yes. To do so, however, we will all have to do more than just tolerate each other. We have to accept each other, and I am sure you realize I have no illusions about this. The notion of belonging is fundamental. At the same time, there is also the notion of trust which is just as fundamental. No one in this House, starting with yourself, would believe that the Prime Minister or the Minister of External Affairs take a position because they feel like it. They do so because they have what they feel is the best possible reading on the matter, and of course I don't have to speak on their behalf. The best possible reading required that the decision be made but, on the other hand, perhaps we should go through a specific exercise before getting that far, and the exercise that we are seeing here in the House is not one that stresses our weakness.
I feel it shows our strength and our ability to take a position and at the same time not only address the people of Israel but also the Palestinians and peoples all over the world to tell them that the Parliament of Canada, on whatever side we happen to be in this Chamber, is a responsible body and that at the same time we try to be fully aware that there is a fine line between peace and war-


@Acting Speaker: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Drummond.


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, by invading Kuwait on August 2, Iraq provoked the worst international crisis in recent years, in a region that for a long time has been know as particularly explosive, with profound enmities exacerbated by poverty and economic disparity, muffled hostility between religions and countries and the resulting extremism and blind hatred. This is a region scarred by eight years of war between Iran and Iraq, an unending civil war in Lebanon, repeated con-

Government Orders
frontations between Arabs and Israelis and violent disputes between Israelis and Palestinians.
The act of aggression committed by Iraq was a direct challenge to the international community, at a time when the end of the old adversarial relationship between the superpowers had opened the way to legal recourse, dialogue and co-operation to deal with international problems and safeguard peace and security.
We are going through a time of extraordinary change in the world. In eastern Europe, people are throwing out communist ideology and embracing the freedom and responsibility of democracy and a free market economy. In Western Europe, the process of political and economic integration is accelerating. In 1991, 340 million Europeans will finally form a single market.
The invasion and annexation of Kuwait by Iraq has destabilized the world order, disrupted development projects in the Third World, upset the transition towards a market economy in central and eastern Europe and will continue to affect political and economic systems throughout the world.
Since the beginning of the crisis, the international community has spoken clearly, with an unprecedented consensus. Now that the cold war is over, the United Nations organization could build a lasting international order. It is therefore very important, Mr. Speaker, to remind Canadians of the fundamental reasons behind the government's position in the Persian Gulf crisis and its involvement in the war.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall briefly the events that have taken place since August 2. On that day, the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait with a major and impressive military force consisting of more than 150,000 men, 1,200 tanks and 1,000 armoured cars, shocking the Arab world as well as the rest of the international community, which immediately condemned this invasion.
This invasion, which came without provocation, went well beyond any resistance that Kuwait could have offered. The Iraqi forces quickly took over the capital, plundering the country's resources without the slightest restraint and persecuting its inhabitants. After six days of
unequal and bloody combat, Saddam Hussein declared that Kuwait had been annexed to Iraq.
The UN Security Council, of which Canada is a member, demanded the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops. An economic, financial and military embargo was also ordered in the Persian Gulf against Iraq and Kuwait, an embargo observed by Canada which agreed to become part of the international strike force.
As I said earlier, the reaction of the international community was fast and clear. The UN Security Council adopted 12 resolutions to put an end to the unwarranted occupation of Kuwait by Iraq.
More than 30 countries took part in this multinational action, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the U.S.S.R.
The action also included African countries like Niger and Senegal, and new democracies in Central Europe like Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Poland.
After the period of grace granted Saddam Hussein by the UN Security Council, there was no indication, unfortunately, that Saddam Hussein was prepared to withdraw his troops from Kuwait. In fact, his position seemed to harden from day to day, supported by the Iraqi Parliament.
A meeting between Secretary of State James Baker and Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Tariq Aziz, as well as conciliation efforts attempted twice by UN Secretary General Mr. Perez de Cuellar, failed to advance the cause of peace and a diplomatic solution to the problem. Armed conflict became a possibility.
Mr. Speaker, we must review the reasons that caused the Government of Canada to provide military aid. We must not forget that our military participation is consequent on a series of resolutions adopted by the vast majority of members of the UN Security Council.
Our membership in this organization is above all an act of faith in all the ways in which we can possibly guarantee peace in this world. Many people who condemn the use of force included in resolution 678 fail to understand that the UN charter contains not only statements of principle in favour of peace but also provisions respecting to collective security.

Drafted following the atrocities of World War II, the Charter provides for the measures needed to enforce its provisions, should these be ignored by a given nation.
Everyone, including myself, hopes that international conflicts are resolved peacefully. All Canadians share that hope, I am sure.
However, when a situation may worsen to the point of being the threat to international security, and when all persuasive arguments seem to have failed, what then?
Wait until an entire nation is massacred and decimated? Stand by while human rights and the rights of a nation are violated unrestrainedly, without any reactions from the rest of the world? That is the crux of the problem.
What made this situation intolerable for the international community, Mr. Speaker?
We knew that Iraq had upgraded its military forces and that it continued to reinforce its facilities in Kuwait.
Mr. Speaker, Canada must fully support the position of the UN. If we were to dissociate ourselves in any way from this agency whose first mission is universal peace it would be tantamount to suspending our belief in humanity.
If at a given time, a group of human beings no longer believes in understanding, tolerance and trust among nations, should we in the name of a precarious peace, let them go ahead and destroy their neighbours?
It is regrettable that the Persian Gulf crisis led to war rather than a peaceful settlement. There is no such thing as a good war. War is humanity's least noble invention. We all want to avoid it. Saddam Hussein remained deaf to the pleas for peace until the last minute and, by refusing to withdraw from Kuwait pursuant to the UN ultimatum, he opened the door to war. The main thing to remember is that if we want peace we must uphold the principles enshrined in the United Nations charter. We must be prepared to defend what we perceive as being the good cause. By acting otherwise we would be telling Saddam Hussein and other potential aggressors that the UN is unable to respond efficiently to aggression.
Government Orders
On January 16, unfortunately, the time had come to take the measures required to restore world order and maintain the efficiency of the United Nations.
In the United Nations charter, the peoples declare their solemn resolve to live in peace and unite their strengths to maintain international peace and security.
Under the terms of the charter the Security Council is primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts.
Since their inception the United Nations has often been called upon to prevent a dangerous situation from degenerating into real war, to convince adversaries to use the conference table rather than resort to arms, and facilitate the return to peace, or at least end the fighting when hostilities do break out.
Despite failures and setbacks the UN remains ever more prepared to restore and maintain peace in the world.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope the war will be short so that our fellow citizens who are defending freedom and the cause of enduring peace will soon return home.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments, five minutes. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Scarborough-Agincourt.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very important motion put forward by the government. Basically, we are debating whether we should go to war or not go to war. It is redundant. We already engaged in war two or three nights ago when my colleague from Dartmouth came rushing in to let the House know that we had engaged in war.
Calling the House back to debate it is redundant, because we have already engaged in war. However, I want to put on record not only some of my feelings and thoughts, but also those of my constituents.
We called over 2,000 constituents over the last weekend and Monday and asked them whether they felt Canada should participate in the gulf situation in an offensive role or whether the sanctions should be given more time. The results of this poll were overwhelmingly that more than 70 per cent of my constituents were opposed to an offensive role being played by the Canadian forces. I would like to read for the record some of the comments of my constituents.

Government Orders
Mr. Goldthorpe said, "I hate war and senseless killing of our young people. It is just terrible, and I think they should try and negotiate peace".
Mr. Jaffray said: "My understanding was that the Canadian troops were only supposed to be a defensive force and not supposed to take any part in the attacking of Hussein. I would rather see the Canadian troops operating under the flag of the United Nations".
Mrs. Beath said: "Canada's stand should be to support the United Nations' position of sanctions, but should take the initiative on the Palestinian issue and call for the United Nations to continue with sanctions until such a time as they have proven not to be working".
Mrs. Akers said: "I think sanctions should be given more time. You cannot back someone into a comer; it has got to stop. There cannot be a war; it is going to affect us over here. Please, no war! The sanctions need more time".
Mrs. Bloemink said: "I don't think this war is a thing that is desirable. I think we have been led into it. Our boys should not be sacrificed to greed and profit, which is what the whole thing is about. It's a hypocritical situation". Mr. Guildys states:
The economic blockade which the Government of Canada and the
rest of the world has been pursuing in the Middle East, is probably
the right way to go.
As far as war is concerned, I have always been against war because
innocent lives will be threatened.
I listened very carefully to what my constituents were telling me. I met with my constituents and I listened very carefully to what the Canadian people are saying. The constituents of Scarborough-Agincourt could be wrong. I could be wrong. However, they are not in favour of war.
If the Canadian people are saying no to war, how can we as parliamentarians say to the Canadian people: "We are deaf and we are not going to hear you. We are not going to pay attention to you. We are going to put you in a situation where we are going to engage in war". If we look at the history of how the Canadians forces were sent there, if we look at the events that led to our young men and women being engaged in war, we would see that at no time were we clear with the Canadian public. We
would see that at no time did we come forward and say, "Canadian public, this is what we are going to do".
Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2. The House was not recalled immediately in order to debate the very important question: Should we send Canadian troops? Should we commit Canadian military equipment into the gulf? Should we commit young men and women of our Canadian forces into the theatre of war?
The Prime Minister made the decision. The Minister of National Defence went off to Halifax to see the three ships go out. There was a big hoopla and a big hurrah, and they thought, "Maybe we will go up in the polls for taking the same stand as Maggie Thatcher in the Falklands". Then the House came back.
Of course, this House was led to believe that we are there enforcing sanctions under the United Nations resolution. We can clearly see how even that great body, the United Nations Security Council, was arm-twisted and taken out of context and forced so that the vote happened when it did. It is very important to know when the vote did occur. The vote occurred in the United Nations the last week that the United States was the chairperson. Everybody there had an interest again. The Russians voted with the United States.
Let us examine for a minute why they voted with the United States for the deadline in order for war to take place. Because right now the Russians are in chaos in their country and the United States has promised them food and aid. The Chinese abstained from the vote. Why did they abstain from the vote? It is important to note that. They wanted to be on the side of right for a change, and not the wrong side as they were in 1989 when the tanks rolled in Tiananmen Square. All of the other countries supported the U.S. because they had a lot to gain. It is my opinion that sanctions, if they had been given a little bit more time, would have worked.
We must first of all take a hard look at why this debate is Necessary. Iraq under the leadership of a madman, Saddam Hussein, invaded its southern neighbour Kuwait. While this is a major concern to the world community, it must be taken in the context of recent world history. There have been instances of a larger country taking over a smaller country, some of which attracted the attention of the United Nations and resulted in punitive action to the aggressor country.

One example of that was Cyprus, in 1974 on an August morning.
Millions and millions of people all over the world were watching an aggressor, not less powerful than Saddam Hussein, not less crazy than Saddam Hussein, and not less militarily viable than Saddam Hussein, invade a smaller country, a country where three nations were supposed to be protectors; Thrkey, Greece and England.
Yet one of those countries that was to be the protector invaded the Island of Cyprus. What did the Cypriots have to fight off the Tbrks? They had an army which was made up of a minimum number of forces, guns and hand grenades that dated back to World War II. They had no oilfields. They had no money. Because they had no oilfields and no money, they had no friends.
Yet, if we were to parallel the two countries, the population of Kuwait is about the same. They occupy about the same place in the Middle East. They have about the same temperature. There is one difference between the two countries. One country is rich in oilfields. The other country is not.
Yet the rest of the world, although it condemned the occupation of Cyprus, and although the defence minister said that valiant efforts were put forward by Canadian troops acting as peacekeeping forces, we did not see the Americans send 450,000 men over there. We did not see the French come to their aid. We did not see the British react. We did not see anybody take any action. We did not see Canada send three ships and 2,000 men. Why not? I go back to my original calculation and conclusion. There was no oil. Maybe it served their particular interest to have that island divided. I question why the double standard.
There are reasons we should have given sanctions more time to work. We must first of all take a hard look at why the sanctions would have worked. History shows us that if you put enough pressure on somebody, he will react one way or another. Maybe what happened to Benito Mussolini, another madman in World War II will happen to Saddam Hussein and maybe the world will be at peace. The Italian dictator told his good friend- another dictator, Adolf Hitler-that if oil had been included in the economic sanctions imposed by the
Government Orders
League of Nations in 1935-36, he would have been forced to remove his troops from occupying Ethiopia.
There have been other instances, Madam Speaker, when sanctions have been applied with extreme effectiveness. I would like to explore a few for the members of this House who say that sanctions would have not worked.
American sanctions applied in the early 1980s were instrumental in forcing the Polish government to free political prisoners. The Indians' partial blockade of Nepal in 1989 to 1990 caused widespread disruption in that country which resulted in a change of government that was sympathetic to India.
When I was growing up, I remember a little country called Biafra. In the late 1960s the world watched with great interest sanctions applied by Nigeria which had a devastating effect on the economy and the social infrastructure of Biafra. If we are to learn anything from the past in regard to sanctions, it is that for them to be effective, they must be applied as strongly as possible and must be given enough time for the effects of them to be felt.
I noticed the other day that the Secretary of State for External Affairs said our sanctions are not working. Things were getting through. When he was challenged, he could not back that up.
The first part of this has, without a doubt, been achieved. The world community at large had acted as one of the most effective trade blockades ever seen. The only part missing in these sanctions was time. History has shown that sanctions of a few months are not effective, but given a reasonable amount of time would likely have resulted in the crippling of Iraq. It is indeed unfortunate that the Americans did not have the will to give sanctions a chance.
There is an old song sung by the Beatles of the 1960s that says: Give peace a chance. Had we given sanctions a chance to work, maybe we would not have seen what happened. Maybe there would have been no casualties. Maybe the madman would have moved back. As we speak today, maybe there would not have been Scud missiles fired into a third neutral country that has nothing to do with this war. However, Saddam Hussein

National Defence and say that we are going to pull our troops out. And where are we going to take them? That is a very important question. We are probably going to send them to the gulf. Why? Because there is oil there and because Bush got on the phone and said: "Send us your forces".
It is interesting to note, for the record, when the first strike was made. Out of the almost 30 countries of the multinational force, which were the countries that actually led the first strike? Let me put this on the record. They were the United States, Britain, the Saudis, Kuwait, and Canada.
I know that I only have a few minutes but I want to analyse this. The United States, why? Because it has interests in oil. The same thing applies to Britain. The Saudis were protecting themselves from aggression. In the case of Kuwait, it was because their country was overrun and Canada because we have a Prime Minister who does not know the words "foreign policy". We have a Prime Minister who does not know what Canadian foreign policy is. When the President of the United States picks up the phone, it is: "Yes, Sir, we will do it. Yes, Sir, we are going to send the 24 planes to the gulf. Yes, Sir, we are going to send our three ships".
You are going to say three ships and 24 planes make a hot lot of difference to the multinational force that is there. It is the aspect that we are there so the Americans do not raise the flag as in an American war. They say: "Oh, we had Canada with us".
Well, I would say it is about time we look at a foreign policy which is made in Canada. I say that it is time we look into other aggressions such as in Latvia, Lithuania, Sri Lanka, and throughout the world. Through the years of Mr. Pearson Canada was truly and honestly a United Nations peacekeeping force. Aggression, yes, when it is needed. Fighting, yes, when it is needed. But first and foremost sanctions must be given a chance to work. They have proven time and time again that they work. Therefore sanctions should come first and foremost before we pick up and push the button on the doomsday machine. That is what is happening. We are pushing the button.
We are not any better than Saddam Hussein. He is a madman who killed millions of children and women. He pillaged. One can say that we are killing. One can say
Government Orders
that had we given time, maybe another two months, that would not have been done.
I am going to close by saying that I am supportive of our troops 100 per cent and I join with other members of this House from both sides in praying and wishing them the best so that they will rejoin their families. No-one can stand up and listen to the cries of a six-year old when he says: "My daddy might die".


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, if I understood the member correctly he indicated that Canadian forces were part of the first strike. In light of the fact that that is not my understanding, I would ask him if he could provide me with any supporting evidence he has.


Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, when war broke out the minister of state for defence was speaking and my colleague from Dartmouth came into the House and asked if the minister could explain the role the Canadian forces were engaged in at that time. She used a particular term "sweep and escort". Those were her words. Maybe "sweep and escort" is not the right meaning-I am not a military man-but from my reading of the newspaper I understand that they would escort or sweep in front of the bombers. They would be flying in protective cover. So if you are up and you are flying when the others are attacking what are you doing? I might have misunderstood, Madam Speaker, but when the Prime Minister came in and said that we were at war I clearly understood that.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, needless to say I am pleased that a new member of this House has raised the question of Cyprus.
I have raised that question for years and years, but I did understand that the world was such that Ihrkey, a great allied military power in NATO was our strongest wing in NATO against the Warsaw Pact. I understood that, even though I disagreed that because of that we should do nothing.
Now we have what we call a new international order where we ask everybody to respect the decision of the United Nations. And we see that our friend Ihrkey is with us today in this new adventure. I asked once, I asked twice, I begged privately: Are you now saying that there is a new international order whispering at least to the ears of the Ihrkish, saying "the time has now come to get out of Cyprus." I was in Cyprus, I know Cyprus as well as I know Lebanon. I call it honey on earth.

Government Orders

The honey of the world-Cyprus and Lebanon. But because they were denied help from the beginning the situation gets worse.

Cyprus has a population of 600,000 people with 200,000 refugees. Who cares about Cyprus? Who cared about Lebanon at the very beginning? Who cares about the Palestinians? I do not agree with the invasion of Iraq and Kuwait.-I do not support Iraq attacking Israel last night, destroying a few houses. It could have been a monstrosity. But do you see the same paranoia on CNN television when every day people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are being humiliated, deprived of school, university and college, deprived of water and deprived of freedom? Oh, we will solve it. Read the speech made by my Prime Minister to his Royal Highness King Hussein of Jordan when he spoke here. Read the speech of His Royal Highness begging us to understand. Read the speech of the President of Israel who spoke right there. I listened like a gentleman, as I should, to his speech. There were promises and more promises. There was no action during that time. People got desperate and more desperate. Hate is building. Who knows now if King Hussein, who we used to call our friend, will not be the next victim because of people who have no more hope.
I am asking that government and I am asking my colleague to make a comment. The time has not come to make war, but it is a fact of life so I have to support my Canadians soldiers. Do you think we are a bunch of kooks? We pray for our Canadian boys and girls who are there now. We are not going to deprive them of money or anything they need to come back healthy. I beg of my country, Canada, and at the same time send signals around the world that we will look after all these injustices that have been going on. Is it asking too much from a Canadian?


Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saint-Denis for giving me a chance to express maybe something that is called hatred, maybe something that members of this House have not been alluding to. Greece was under Ottoman occupation for 400 years, until 1821, when they rose and kicked the conqueror out. Since 1821 to this day, children in Greece
are taught to hate the Tbrks. The children of Turkey are taught to hate the Greeks. I was part of that growing up. My children are also part of that and their children, because of their heritage, will also be part of that. This hatred gets passed on. The hatred in the Middle East gets passed on. With the children of Cyprus the same thing gets passed on. Let's stop discussing war and start discussing peace.
Some of my colleagues in the opposition are saying that war has started.
With the discussion we have here, we are the only Parliament in the world that is still discussing war or peace, or this or that.
I say to my colleagues that it is very important that we are here continuing this discussion even if it has to sit 24 hours.
If my colleague from B.C. disagrees with me, I say to him-


David Barrett: I did not say anything.


Jim Karygiannis: I am sorry if I misunderstood you.
It is important that we sit here and discuss the machinery that can be unleashed upon human beings. How many of you have seen people killed in war? Children?
I was in Cyprus, and I have seen the work that our Canadian forces can do. I know what they are capable of. I am proud of them. I say to you, Madam Speaker, that we should supporting our Canadian forces in peacekeeping roles, not in acts of aggression.
Acts of aggression must be stopped once and for all here, today.


Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address the motion by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and seconded by the Deputy Prime Minister.
Since the debate began, the circumstances have regrettably deteriorated to hostilities in the Middle East. I believed at the outset that this would be the most difficult decision I will make in this Chamber. It is more difficult than others because of the consequences of any war.

I cannot claim experience in war except as the son and nephew of a World War II veteran. As many considerations are involved in every decision by members of Parliament, I have tried to view this from numerous perspectives.
The motion is straight forward:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
I wish, first, to address the motion from an international perspective and not so much from a war analysis. As the world continues to undergo rapid change, including a move towards a more global community, I believe it is important to protect our only instrument capable of international order and peace: the United Nations.
As other colleagues in this Chamber have indicated, four to six years ago, the nations of the world formed an organization: the UN. The UN's primary purpose was to be the maintenance of international peace and security.
The charter would give the world the right and the capacity to deter aggression and to reverse it by force if necessary when it occurred. It was organized for the circumstances we are faced with today.
As the former Opposition Leader said: "This is the crucial test for the United Nations." The UN has adopted a total of 12 Security Council resolutions since Iraq attacked Kuwait on August 2. As a member of that Council, what does Canada now do in view of its disregard by Saddam Hussein?
As a founding member of the UN, does Canada now withdraw because the situation is becoming tense?
Second, I had planned to speak as well from a national perspective, because we all have to answer the question: What course is right for Canada and the cause of peace?
Having been in touch with various leaders in my constituency to debate and assist me in determining my position in response, I had to resolve this very personally. I have always said in other conflicts that I do not advocate violence and that I value life.
Government Orders
Some constituents have stated their opposition to the war. My 7 year-old daughter cried because of her own fears of war. These made it more painful for me to come to a conclusion on this motion.
Because I have been involved, although in a small way, with the United Nations, I had to reflect on my own personal beliefs. I recall the day, as a Canadian delegate to the General Assembly of the UN in New York when resolution 678 was being discussed.
It was then that the sudden chill and realization of the real potential of war was made upon me for the first time. Since then, I spent much time in thought, in agonizing about what was to be my position if the circumstances that face us today were to occur.
Throughout, one view did not change, and that is my position in support of the United Nations. As one who has been to both Geneva and New York at the UN on several occasions, I had come to believe that the UN could do very great things for human beings; things like the establishment, the confirmation, and the protection of rights of all peoples.
Now the question comes at a time when its very role is challenged by Saddam Hussein. Do I abandon support? Or do I reaffirm the support as the motion calls for in continuing support for its purpose.
Having considered arguments on both sides of this very difficult issue, there are still those all over the world who rely on the UN for the protection of their rights.
Madam Speaker, allow me to digress for a moment on another, but related, concern. What do we do now? What should we do for the future? What positive considerations had to be given for post-war initiatives? I humbly suggest two recommendations for consideration by this House. First, pass this motion at the earliest opportunity to reaffirm our support for the United Nations. Second, and as important, establish a peace mission immediately, perhaps either through UN Security Council meetings or through Middle East peace talks under UN observation.
I believe as many other colleagues have mentioned earlier, even a few minutes ago, that now is the time to address peace with every effort possible.
I believe also in the defence and construction of a durable structure of international order. I will be voting in favour of this motion because I support our troops. I support Canada, and I support the United Nations.

Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments. The hon. member for Edmonton Southeast.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I are from the same province. We both have training as lawyers, although I know that that is an unpopular profession. Next to a politician, perhaps the most unpopular.
I wonder, though, if the member has not very much oversimplified the matter. Is he, for example, aware of the article that was written by a highly respected economist, Mr. Gary C. Hufbauer, and co-authored by him, pointing out in part that if ever there was a place where sanctions would be likely to work, for geographic and reasons, Iraq is it, given the fact that half of Iraq's GNP is involved with oil. Had we given sanctions another few months, according to the article, by the summer or fall there was an excellent probability that Mr. Hussein would have left Kuwait.
While he is answering that, perhaps he could also deal with my second point which is that it is estimated that half of the people who are going to die in this war are going to be Iraqi children. Because of the war with Iran, Iraq's population consists of about 45 per cent children under the age of 15.
I wonder if he might also tell us whether he thinks it is really good for the United Nations, when it could have used this model of isolating and embargoing with truly effective sanctions, for it now to become part of the Pax Americana which seems to be evolving because of the problems in the Soviet Union. I realize those are three questions, but maybe he would deal with any one he cares to.


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the very difficult question.
First of all, I am not thoroughly familiar with the article he mentioned, but the information I am aware of is by the allied forces and the United Nations on whether or not sanctions in this case are working. It is my understanding that they were working on the wrong people. Sanctions in this case, were working against the poor people and the children in Iraq, but not against the
military. I think the collective information and the collective decision of allied members of the United Nations certainly must be better than the information I have. It was their decision that sanctions were not working and I support that.
With respect to the number of Iraqi children who will die, that is one of the reasons I said in my presentation that it was a difficult decision for me to make. In my opinion, no war is good because of the impact on innocent lives.
In terms of other situations around the world, I can only call on this House to consider any kind of peaceful resolution or mechanism to deal with existing conflicts anywhere in the world with respect to children. Any contemplated use of economic sanctions should not be necessary to begin with.


Mr.   Brian@: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to one of the most important issues in Canadian history. Canada's commitment to the United Nations during the Gulf Crisis will undoutedly be recorded among the most significant aspects of our history.
This debate is a discussion about war and peace, a debate about right and wrong. This debate is about standing up for what is right, about taking a stand and fighting against evil. Canadians from sea to sea know that now is the time to reflect on Canadian history, Canadian traditions and Canada's ongoing commitment to peace.
Canadians from coast to coast also know that now is the time to contemplate and decide our future as part of the international community. From an international perspective this debate is about Canada's commitment to peace and peaceful nations. From a national perspective this debate is clearly about leadership.
There are those who say the aggressor must forcefully be dealt with. Others say wait until Saddam Hussein is struck with a feeling of peace. What can peace mean for Saddam Hussein? Does it mean more time to prepare for war? Peace is, indeed, an elusive, valuable and oftentimes fragile treasure. In recent history, world peace has been to a large measure attained by the United Nations, an organization founded specifically to pave a path to peace. For decades the UN has been successful as a team of peaceful nations joined together
January 17,1991	COMMONS
to protect the weakest among its members from aggressive bullies like Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein has continuously demonstrated, by his words and by his deeds, that he rejects peace. The evidence against Saddam Hussein tells a fearsome story: use of poison gas on his own citizens, wake of death and destruction when Iraq invaded Kuwait, development of biological and chemical weapons. It tells of attempts to develop nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction, associations with terrorist groups and of the recent missile attacks on Israel. On August 2, Saddam Hussein started a war with the international community. His actions and statements have continuously demonstrated a disregard for human life, international law, property, and his own personal integrity.
To ensure the continued success of the United Nations, it is extremely important for Canada to honour our commitment to the international family, within the United Nations, and stand together against the evil of Saddam Hussein. Canada cannot accept the benefits of the United Nations and then, when times are tough, reject its responsibilities. Canada must play a prominent role in the United Nations, not only when times are easy but, more important, when the situation becomes more difficult, as it is now in the gulf. Canada must continue its commitment to paving the path of peace, now in the gulf and also in the future. Through the United Nations, Canada must continue its efforts to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and ensure the enforcement of international law.
As in the case of some others, my age limits my experience with war. I, of course, remember television reports of the Vietnam war and I remember hearing stories of other wars. In my family, my grandfathers had committed part of their lives to military service and, during the Second World War, my father served overseas as a member of Canada's Armed Forces in the Signal Corps. I recall, as a small boy, becoming focused on war every year, during the Remembrance Day ceremonies. In our home, the ritual every November 11 was a memorable one. Early in the morning, my mother would busy herself by assisting my father, shining and preparing his war and military service medals and, while they discussed memories of the war years and Dad fitted and adjusted his navy blue Royal Canadian Legion beret, I am sure they reflected on the years during the 1940s when, as

Government Orders
newly weds, they found themselves thousands of miles apart and, although hopeful, they were somewhat uncertain about their future. After the small town parade, religious service and gathering of veterans, my father would return home to respond to questions from my brother and me.
Year after year, as a boy, I asked about war seeking, perhaps, a comment about heroism or glory. Year after year, I received the same lecture. War, I was told, was horrible. War, he told me, meant fear and terror. War was dirty. War meant unbelievable destruction. War, he described, was an awful experience to be avoided whenever and wherever possible. But he also lectured me about responsibility and commitment and about duty to Canada. Although the concepts of responsibility and commitment were less difficult to comprehend, I only began to understand the meaning of duty when I learned that, even though an old leg injury of his offered him an easy escape from conscription, my father enlisted as a volunteer to serve the interests of our country because he believed that it was his duty. Canada has a duty to support the efforts of the United Nations in the Gulf. Canadians from coast to coast must all join together to express our strong support to those who are on active duty in the Persian Gulf as members of the Canadian Armed Forces.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, at the outset I would like to say a few words about my constituency which rarely has the opportunity of being in the news that is now on everybody's mind during this current situation. I have the honour of representing Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca which includes the largest Pacific coast naval base of the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as other contingents of our armed forces and of course, represented by the only armed force anywhere in the world that has won a Nobel Peace Price. TTiis price for peacekeeping was awarded to the Princess Patricia Light Canadian Infantry based in Victoria.
I was struck by the reference to one's parents. Since this is probably one of the few speeches I make toward the twilight of my career, I will do something I have never done in my 25 years in public life and respond similarly for a few minutes.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
My father was bom in this country, raised in Winnipeg, Manitoba and in his first year of university volunteered to go overseas in the First World War. My father spent 10 months in the trenches, was wounded twice and suffered through a gas attack, and finally and ultimately lost his eyesight permanently in the fifties as a consequence of his service to this country.
My mother was a peace activist. My mother was responsible in her day for having me swaddled in bandages in 1936 as a victim of the Spanish Civil War protesting the rise of Fascism at that particular time. So the bona fides that all of us Canadians have of similar histories are important to reflect upon.
My father also talked to me about duty and devotion, as the other member spoke, but my mother and father also spoke to me about responsibility of conscience. I am Jewish, but I had the great opportunity of having two wonderful parents, and then attending two Catholic universities. I spent six years with the Jesuits and was exposed to Christian philosophy. I majored in Thomastic philosophy. A strange combination, a Jewish Thomist but nonetheless, here is the product.
The consequences of that amalgan in my background heightened the awareness that flag-waving and jingoism are indeed important for all of us at any given time in our life. But the most important thing for any one of us is to understand that we, as individuals, are responsible for our own actions. We serve a nation and we are proud to be Canadians, but this country is not great on the basis of some symbol or jingoism; it is great on the basis of individuals being responsible to their own conscience and then expressing that through the democratic process that we have, ultimately leading to this Chamber.
So there will be differences of opinion and no one must be diminished regardless of party on the basis of that difference of opinion. So far, this debate has been marked by a minimum amount of partisan activity, except that it has broken out regrettably from the government front benches in a way that has dismayed me, and today was a bit of an example of that. I hope it is the end of that, but it has broken out and I need to mention that.
This problem is presented as if it was an either/or situation. But we have to reflect just a little bit of how we reach this point.
Who sold the technology to Iraq? Did the Iraqi scientists spend Gross National Product of their country in developing surface-to-air missiles? Where did the Scuds come from? Where did the mirage airplanes come from?
The very panoply of a ray of arms against Iraq is a reflection of the arms they were able to buy from the Soviet Union, France, the United States and anyone else who wanted to sell it. We talk about the missiles zooming through the air, the Iraqis having this, that and everything else. Who sold it to them?
What was available on the market? To castigate members of the Liberal Party or my party for not following an absolute ginglism demands we examine whose hand has been behind the scene in preparing the material available for Iraq. The Soviet Union's hands are dirty. The United States' hands are dirty. Yes, this country, too: Its hands are dirty.
Not one western nation stood up during the time of all of these sales or in the great debates during the League of Nations, was against arms and arms embargoes. It was necessary for the Prime Minister of this country to sell his point and to be selective about his comments on history, and he has not done this House a service.
I thought it dismaying that he did not mention those people from this country who fought for freedom who have still to be recognized by Canada officially. Those are the brave young men of the Mackenzie-Papineau brigade who volunteered from Canada, served in Spain and gave their lives there against Fascism. Still, they have not been recognized by this country because there is a political division.
Nobody's hands are clean nor am I a saint, but I do read history. Who sold the guns to El Salvador that killed those six Jesuit priests and murdered those two innocent women? Who made the arms available for Salvador Allende to be murdered in his presidential office after he was democratically elected? Who was it who invaded Panama or Grenada for that matter, or Afghanistan?
While we talk about this new co-operation at the United Nations-God help me. I hope it is a reformation in the minds of those international leaders who now sit at the Security Council, including China with its hands at Tiananmen Square. Remember, they sit and deliberate without a clean background.

We are human beings, and we do make mistakes. Alas, I think we have made another mistake. This is a great testing time for the United Nations, but what a terrible test. We should have given more time for the embargo to work.
I find it ironic that I quote a former head of the CIA. To give strength to my argument, it was nonetheless the former head of the CIA in the United States' hearings who gave the evidence that Sanctions would work had we waited a bit longer.
The speech of the Leader of the Liberal Party and that of my own party clearly made that point. They represent, combined, a higher percentage of vote reflected in the general population than the government's.
We have a legitimate point of view that we have to present without the partisanship. I wanted to comment about the force of international law. The Prime Minister says-we all agree-that international law must be regarded. The court in The Hague was appealed to just within the last 10 years by the Government of Nicaragua to stop it from violating the sovereignty of that nation by placing mines in the Managua harbour.
When the Government of the United States was faced with the possibility of losing the case in the court in The Hague, it announced that it would ignore the decision in the court.
It is not good enough. I am hoping now that all the words, jingoism and statements by the big five and the Security Council means that never again will they be selective of when they decide the rule of law should apply to them as a nation. I hope out of this experience the Soviet Union will never again move in and crush the people of Lithuania. I am thankful that they have agreed to a referendum. I hope that imperialism of the extreme left will never show its hand again and the imperialism of the right will begin to stay its hand based on the rhetoric that is now being applied to this current situation.
I have some personal comments about this current situation. Five years ago, with the advent of Mikhail Gorbachev I spoke to a Catholic priest who is a very good friend of mine and I said: "Explain to me how this phenomena happens." He said: "Dave, the only answer I can give is that it is a gift from God." Being a bit of an
Government Orders
agnostic, I was willing to accept that explanation because I was pleased with what I thought was happening. We saw the beginning of the end of the cold war. We saw the alliances, both in the Warsaw Pact and in NATO, being forced to question the necessity of their continued interests. The military and Soviet Union and some of the military in the west felt threatened by the thaw of the cold war. Certainly the militaiy industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned us about also got very frightened.
With the cold war ending, we have to look at our parts of the economy, as the Soviets looked at their parts of the economy that were essentially built on the arms trade. The only way the arms trade can be sustained is by having a war. We have got one now. It is too simple to say that this war was arranged to sustain the arms race but it is pretty convenient. We have moved now from the cold war to the new crusades. Why do I say the new crusades? Because the magic trigger words used in the cold war were anti-communism or anti-capitalism. Those two trigger words have now become passe in world history and we have reduced ourselves to finding new trigger words; anti-Arab, anti-Jew, anti-Christian.
The fundamentalist Muslims have been appealed to in this debate to rise up against the infidel. Saddam Hussein has defined this aggression, that he initiated, as being a jihad. He is the one who added the dimension at this point of a religious war and there is fertile ground for what he is saying. On our side, we have witnessed in the Middle East serious attempts by serious people, both in the Palestinian community and in the Israeli community to get an international peace conference going, only to see it scuttled time and time again.
If nothing else comes out of this series of tragic events whose catalogues of loss of life have been described far more adequately and passionately than I can, by hon. members in this House, I want to believe and understand that this government will be in the forefront demanding an international conference on all that regions problems and everybody at the table.
Not only is the first casualty the truth in a war, but reason and logic and a perspective that is necessary for picking up the pieces afterward. I wanted the embargo to work. Now that we have a war. I hope to God it is over as quickly as possible with a minimum loss of life.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
This is not a football game. This is not the NHL on television. You don't just turn off the channel and think that it is over. Unbelievable human, economic, and social carnage will be left there. What have we got to put in place when Saddam Hussein is gone, with a population that is full of hate and anger against the Christian infidel and the west? Do we think that some benevolent person is going to come in and rule Kuwait with an understanding hand? He or she will be murdered within one month. We are going to be in a quagmire there and anybody who thinks we will not have to put peacekeeping forces inside Iraq and Kuwait perhaps, but certainly in Iraq, is right out of their mind.
The peace and tranquillity of that nation as it goes through a major transformation will require that. I hear commentators on television saying that: "oh, no, it is surgical and, bang, it is over". Do not kid yourself.
Not only must we be ready to participate in a peace conference but we must also be prepared to understand that part of our budgets must go to playing a role in that peacekeeping force.
We talk about this war being over. I mention Iraq. Then we look at Syria. Assad today could have been yesterday's Saddam Hussein. He is in the same situation. It is ironic and I do not say this with humour but General Noriega and Saddam Hussein were very close friends of George Bush when he was the head of the CIA. I want to warn any would-be dictator who is heading out into the future to avoid a friendship with the President of the United States because within a few years look what history has shown us.
Hussein is Syria. What are his hands clean with? Nothing. What are they dirty with? Take a look at Lebanon. Jake a look at his vision now of his opportunities and our worry that he may break in this fragile coalition-and he may break. Thank goodness Israel has had the common sense not to retaliate in the last 24 hours. Thank goodness for that.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Barrett: We look at Mr. Mubarak in Egypt struggling to hang on to power, graciously forgiving a $7 billion debt by the Americans. Some cynics would suggest that they bought his support for his role in this. Not me, because I am too young to be a cynic. But when I look at his position and know that the population in his country is ready to hear the siren call of a jihad then I worry.
Then we look at the Soviet Union above Turkey, Azerbaijan, and right across the southern part of the Soviet Union, fundamentalist Islam has become the rallying cry against Moscow domination and we have seen visuals of people being murdered because of religion inside the Soviet Union. Again an example of the new crusades.
Fundamental Christianity, fundamental Islam, fundamental Hebrew, fundamental Judaism, fundamental anything, all have the problems of being absolutely right with no vision that perhaps someone else has a point of view as well. If we allow ourselves to be tied in continuously in this war on the basis of the new crusades, then the Soviet Union is in for turmoil, we are in for turmoil, and international terrorism will be based on "remember Iraq; throw another bomb".
I do not think that has been thought out over there. I came to this Chamber surprised that deputies never even sit next to the cabinet ministers. Where are the experts? Where are the people who advise this government? Even in Question Period, sure it is the opposition's role to make questions available that might jab the government, but it is not the government's role to be facetious in response. It requires statespersonship over there. I do not see much of it and it worries me. Lester Pearson did not act that way. Louis St. Laurent did not, and John Diefenbaker did not.
I have a few more things to say but perhaps I will get to say those in response to questions and answers. But I want to conclude my formal remarks by quoting the Pope's statement of three days ago. He said it in a framework that there are no winners and no losers. He said: "The whole world has lost over what has happened this last week".


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox- Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member might have a few more comments to elaborate on the information that he was giving this House.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I have not said anything that is uniquely mine. I have only reflected wiser heads who do not have a political base which requires them to be more confined. The only thing original in what I have said is my perception that we are really in the new crusades. Everything I have spoken about has led me to believe that.
January 17, 1991

If there ever was a time for the religious community leaders of this world to provide alternate leadership, this is it. It is a time for the Chief Rabbi of Israel, the head Muslim mullahs and the Christian leaders of the world to call their own special inquiry or their own special World Council of Churches meeting, because we all pray to the same God, and we had better make that sure to all our relative adherents. We all pray to the same God, and I hope she understands our wavering when we do this. The reality is that it would be a good alternative and it is also extremely important for salving the egos of males who are involved in this kind of thing to understand that there is a higher course to deal with. I suggest the Canadian government be the first to appeal to the world's religious community leaders on an ecumenical basis to perhaps provide new leadership in problems that are fraught with religious differences above everything else.
This debate is important. How we vote is not important. I do not want anybody to go out of here believing the jingoism that we have to vote for being in the war. We are already in the war. What I had to say before the war started is a heck of a lot different than what I have to say now in dealing with that reality. The Liberal Party understands that and so do we. Our position is clear.
We are opposed to any aggressive role by Canadian forces. But, we must be there to offer humanitarian alternatives. We must be there so that we never again see the visuals of refugees in the water looking for ships. Do you remember those visuals from Vietnam of kids and mothers, regardless of race, creed or colour, looking for a boat or a haven, and how it took the world quite a while to respond? We must never let that happen again.
We have to help Jordan pay a little bit of the bill for those refugees even though they are having an internal fight about whose side they are on. We have a lot of work to do. Let Canada begin to work. Let this government understand the reflections, the desires and the demands of the average man and woman in this country who do not give a fig about Tories, Liberals or Conservatives, but want peace and leadership from this country to deal with the very real human problems that have been created by this disaster and a warning to all those nations who led us to this. Your hands are not clean. You want clean action now, you had better, never behave the way you did in Afghanistan or Vietnam or Panama or elsewhere again.
Government Orders


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca had started to explain the many layers of casualties that occur in a war situation, the layers of casualties with regard to truth and our attempts to try to grip the situation by reverting to simplistic arguments to think that we have some control over this. One of those simplistic arguments that is put forth against our party is that we are anti-military. Well, nothing could be further from the truth.
I would like the member who represents the riding wherein the largest naval base and the Princess Pat Light Infantry, the recipients of a peace prize are located, a neighbouring riding to my own, to talk about the role of the military, the distinguished role of the military throughout Canadian history, and how we can now go on from here with that reputation for Canadian military action. Our position is not criticism of the military. I would like him to expound on that.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, within the last two weeks I had, in my responsibility as a member of Parliament, to be on one of our naval ships, as we saw the crew leaving for the east coast. I was participating in the military ceremony. The captain on the ship was incredible. He allowed us to talk to crew and go wherever we wanted.
The debate among the crew is the same as the debate here in this House. It is no different. They had Liberals, Tories, and New Democrats in uniform. They all had similar opinions. But, the one basic condition and foundation they had in dealing with each other was the genuine desire to be a different kind of service in the Canadian military, based on the traditions my colleague mentioned.
Let no one believe that our men and women who are in uniform for this country are jingoists or rambos. We have the most responsible military force ever in our history. They are well educated, well trained, philosophically based, and understand their traditional role as peacekeepers. They will do what is asked of them. They are doing what is asked of them. We are proud of the fact that they will do what is asked of them. But they will also do the work that we have them for in Cyprus, in Israel, in Lebanon, and in other areas. They are trusted, believed in, and respected.

Government Orders
When this is over, let us understand that Canada is ready for an extension of our role internationally to continue using our military forces for peace.


POINT OF ORDER
John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today there was an exchange between you and I. Following our discussion in chamber, I would like to unequivocally offer to you my apologies and withdraw the comments I made about you.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would very much like to thank the hon. member for doing the honourable thing.

This honourable gesture really has a particular effect: the House of Commons as an institution emerges with greater stature from a difficult moment. On behalf of all members of this House I thank the hon. member very sincerely.


SUPPORT FOR UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, much has been said throughout this debate about the role that Canada has played in the past, what we as a nation should be doing now, and what our role will be in the future.
Canadian forces were actively involved in both World Wars and Korea. As a nation we have paid a high price for freedom and I think sometimes that we have come to take it for granted. Over 100,000 Canadian lives were lost in those wars. How much different history might have been today if our allied forces had not made that ultimate sacrifice to fight and die in a senseless war. I think we have all agreed that all wars are senseless.
We are reminded of this every November 11 when each of us, as members of Parliament, attend the services and see that diminishing line of veterans who appear each year, those who have served their countries in the
past. There are very few from the First World War, if any, and some from the Second World War and Korea.
With those reminders to all of us of the role that Canada has played in past wars, it has given us the opportunity to enjoy some of the freedoms that we have: the freedom each of us has to run for elected office and to speak out freely whether it be in the House of Commons, on the street, or in the media.
A lot of people gave the ultimate so that those of us who enjoy the benefits are able to live the lives we do in Canada. Sometimes I think we take too much of that for granted. We see perhaps at times fewer and fewer people at Remembrance Day services. We dust off our memories once in a while to remember those who have contributed to Canada's role as a nation and the respect we have earned throughout the world, both in serving in active duty and the peacekeeping role that has been talked about so often during the debate in the House.
As a young child growing up during the latter years of the war, my most vivid memories are from the small prairie town of Medicine Hat, which at that time had a population of about 10,000. We had a prisoner of war camp on one side of the town and a military training base for the air force on the other. Young men from countries all over the world came and trained there. We also had young men in that prison camp, many of whom were little more than teenagers. They had probably fought in a war wondering why, as many young people do, they were in it; what cause they were fighting for; and if they were going to get back home and see their loved ones. At the end of the war there were more prisoners in that camp than there were people living in the city.
Young men came over from the British Isles and Europe to train and fly planes and then went back home, not blowing whether or not they would ever be coming back to Canada again. Some of them did, and that has been a remarkable part of our community. People from both sides have come back: those who served in the war and others who were prisoners. They have made their homes, raised their families, and somehow between themselves resolved some of the differences they had.
January 17, 1991

It certainly is not easy for any of us in this House to discuss the situation we are now into, knowing that almost by the minute that it is changing. Television is running almost 24 hours a day now. It is an experience that none of us has had to go through. It has been distanced in the past, but this focuses it very closely on what is happening in today's world.
The Canadian Council of Veterans, in commenting on the present situation, remarked that Canada's veterans have worked long and hard for peace but that there comes a time when the principles and ideals for which we fought in previous wars must once again be defended. This is such a time.
I believe that Parliament has a duty to support the United Nations resolution as it is written, and therefore the resolution that is before this House. That we must use this terrible method of attempting to secure peace and stability throughout the world is a sad reflection on the ability of mankind to resolve our differences.
At the San Francisco conference that gave birth to the United Nations there was a vision of keeping the peace and collective security. This vision was strongly endorsed by Canada and resulted in articles being written into the United Nations charter, enabling member states to aid one another and repulse aggression if necessary by military means. Canada was there at the beginning, upholding the principle of collective security. The Persian Gulf is a crucial test for the United Nations and Canada must support it. With the benefits and security that hopefully go with membership to an organization such as this one also must go the responsibilities.
It was the failure of the League of Nations to respond effectively to aggression that led to its demise.
When Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on August 2, the war in the gulf had effectively started. Reason and diplomacy were apparently not options that he was ever to consider seriously.
I think every effort was made. The United Nations, through its leadership, attempted every avenue open to it. There was diplomacy used here which gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to stand back from the position he had taken and give the pause for peace we had so much hoped would occur. There was no indication that he would end the aggression and every indication that it was just a matter of time until it escalated.
Government Orders
While sanctions may have had an impact if applied rigidly and long enough, there was no guarantee that economic weakness would get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. He appeared willing to let thousands of Iraqis and those in occupied Kuwait suffer before any effect would have been felt by the military.
I know there have been untold accounts of what may or may not have happened to improve the situation, to extend the deadline that was set. I have read a number of articles. I will quote from The Gazette of Montreal for Thursday, January 17, 1991:
Those in Canada and elsewhere who suggest that the world faced a choice between war and peace missed an important consideration: peace now-if it did not include Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait- probably would not have meant peace forever, or even for very long. It would have meant complicity in Iraq's aggression, and the setting of a precedent that would encourage new aggression elsewhere. It would have meant acceptance of Saddam Hussein's evident plan to dominate the Middle East, regardless of the wishes of its inhabitants. Israel and Saudi Arabia had reason to fear his intentions. But Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, whose major sin, it seems, was to have lent Iraq a large sum for its war effort against Iran, shows that even Iraq's friends were not safe.
Indeed, the choice probably was between war now and war later-against a stronger Iraq that could well be equipped with nuclear weapons. Economic sanctions have not worked, despite the fact that they succeeded in cutting off Iraq's oil exports, nor is there convincing reason to believe they would have worked quickly enough.
The United Nations is about peace. But it is also about collective security. Canada would have been wrong to shirk its responsibilities.
Margaret Thatcher commented the other day that dictators never surrender but must be defeated. There will no doubt be continuing disputes between nations long after the events of the Middle East have come to pass, if they ever do. I think we must weigh in our own conscience our values and our love of this country. We must hope and pray we can resolve a difficult situation which has been made much more difficult by the fact that war has taken place.
Setting that aside, the UN with all of its imperfections is our last best hope for the security of the world.
Canadians everywhere have a right to express their feelings. I know that all of us, in our hearts and our wishes, hope for the same result, whether it is those of us in the House, people throughout the country or, I am sure, in other nations, that we can conclude what has taken place. War is probably the result of human frailty. Perhaps all of us have failed to a large degree, and some in smaller ways. But I guess all of us show that this is a result of failures by those of us in various levels of

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
government, right across the scope of countries from one end of the world to the other.
I only hope and pray that soon all of us can look back on this and realize that there has to be a better way of conducting the affairs of the world. My sincere hope is that the United Nations is the avenue open to all of us.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I would ask the member who has just spoken, for whom I have a lot of respect, if he wishes to make any comments to the House about about how those nations, which form part of the allied force, will speak to the Arab world, the world of Islam, after the war.
While he is at it, I wanted to ask the Prime Minister today about an incident that took place this morning on a bus in Ottawa. A young person who is, I believe, of Arab origin, possibly Iraqi, got a bloody nose. Somebody who was on the bus says it was a very nasty incident. I wonder if he has constituents of Iraqi origin or other parts of the Arab world. Does he have any thoughts for them today as well?


Robert Harold Porter: Madam Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast, that certainly I do believe we have some. There is not a large community of Arab people within the constituency, although I know of a number. Certainly incidents such as he mentioned are the types of things that all of us deplore.
I mentioned earlier about the prison camp and the people who are serving the military on the other side. I guess I have reason to feel that at that point in the hostilities, feelings perhaps were running as high as they are now. Yet I have seen a coming together or a melding of those societies. Young men who were prisoners of war came back to live in that community, and others who had served in the forces have come back and have learned to live and work together.
The scars are going to be deep; there is no question about it. I think if the situation remains as it is, with Arab forces on either side, there may be some hope for resolution afterwards. I think the more it goes on, the more we escalate the war that is going on. Should those forces become involved, it is going to make it much more
difficult. I am sure right now for those people, the Arabs on either side, it is going to be very difficult. I do not know if there is ever a healing process. I guess there is not a healing process from the Second World War.
If one talks to the people in Lebanon, their views on what happened there, I am sure, will go on for generations. I am sure, as the hon. member has indicated, what is taking place today will probably remain. The views of those people regarding the way they view the rest of the world and perhaps the way they view us will probably be changed indelibly.
As for incidents such as the hon. member mentioned, it is my hope that we could rise above that kind of thing. I think we are Canadians first. We all come from different backgrounds and different walks of life. The fact that we came from somewhere else that is involved in a situation like this is, I think, something that any Canadian should be able to overlook at this time. I do thank the hon. member for his question.


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Madam Speaker, this debate is fundamental, it is significant, and it may have consequences that none of us can foresee now. We are discussing a decision on Canada's support for UN resolution 678 and, most particularly, the involvement of our Canadian Armed Forces personnel in a military conflict. We are discussing a war that, like all wars, means death and destruction.
The decision was a perplexingly difficult one because it was so far removed from the usual Canadian sphere of experience. Today I believe you could count on the fingers of one hand the number of MPs in this present House of Commons who have served in wartime in Canada's Armed Forces, during either the Second World War or the Korean conflict, which ended more than 37 years ago.
This in itself says a great deal about our country, its role and attitude in world affairs. Our knowledge of war is either as a very distant memory or as history. By tradition, Canadians are not a militaristic or warlike people. Traditionally our peacetime armed forces are small in number and too often neglected, but also extremely professional, as they are once again showing at present.
January 17, 1991

I do not consider myself a hawk or to be in any way hawkish in my approach to international affairs; quite the contrary in fact. During my brief two years in the House, I have had the honour of representing Canada at discussions in Japan, which led up to the United Nations Agreement for Verification of Disarmament and Arms Reductions. I have made statements in this Chamber commending initiatives towards disarmament and for the reduction of nuclear weaponry. Recently, I was one of the country's representatives at the meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's parliamentary group in Britain.
The role of NATO has often been misunderstood. While it is essentially a military organization, it was never intended to be an aggressive force. NATO was founded, with Canada's renowned peacemaker Lester Pearson playing a leading role, as a means of guaranteeing peace through co-operative security agreements between the member nations. In that respect, NATO provided an unqualified success through the 40 years of the cold war. Though it is not recognized as such, perhaps Canada's greatest contribution as a world peacekeeper may well have been in helping to create and maintain the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Canada's reputation as a world peacekeeper goes back as far as the aftermath of the Suez crisis in 1956. We developed an enviable record in that regard in the Middle East and elsewhere in the succeeding years. Many have questions on whether we now might jeopardize all that through our present role in the Persian Gulf.
Here it is significant to look back to another important aspect of our nation's history. Though I have stated that by tradition we are neither warlike nor militaristic, Canada has been faced with the necessity of war and has been ever ready to do all or more than we were expected to do.
This was true particularly in the two world wars during the first half of this century. More than 600,000 Canadians participated in the First World War and one in 10 did not return. Our role in 1939 to 1945 was such that at its conclusion Canada had for the first and, we hope, the last time in our history a complete, full-scale army in Europe.
Government Orders
We had what probably was the world's third largest air force and fourth largest navy. This was no small commitment of achievement on our part because at that time we had approximately 12 million people. I do not speak boastingly of this, of course, though it should be a source of pride for Canadians.
My point is that Canada does have a proud tradition in peacekeeping and also of rising when necessary to join other nations in resisting aggression. I believe a similar necessity now faces us today.
I have listened especially to the arguments of those who claim that economic sanctions should have been given more time to prove their effectiveness against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. I wish I could agree with that view but, in my view, reality shows it to be different.
There are those who say that we should have attempted further negotiations with the Iraqi leader. Again, I personally and most sincerely wish that this was possible. But how can there be negotiations when he refuses to even discuss the basic demand of those arrayed against him that he leave Kuwait and restore it to its sovereignty? In recent days, he has rejected or ignored all the reasoned appeals from world leaders pleading with him to avoid an armed confrontation. Last night's unprovoked attack on Israel is a clear indication that peace and negotiations are not on his agenda.
This is not a crisis of blood for oil, as some would have us believe. "Blood for oil" is a catchy but dangerously simplistic slogan, an attempt to reduce the gulf crisis to a ridiculous common denominator. While the value of Kuwait's oil undoubtedly was a reason for the Iraqi invasion, that oil is of minimal importance to us in Canada. World oil prices have been affected, but no responsible world leader, and certainly not the United Nations, would confront Saddam Hussein just for that.
One disturbing effect of the whole discussion on the crisis in this chamber and elsewhere is the claim that our government is marching to war in some sort of lock-step with the United States administration in Washington. Sadly, I am coming to believe that there are those in Canada who, for whatever reason, so dislike our next-door neighbour that, when considering foreign policies, they first determine the U.S. position and then take the opposite. To such minds, if you agree with the U.S., you are therefore automatically wrong and are a lackey of Washington.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
In the current situation, of course, this totally ignores the fact that the U.S. is one of 28 nations, as is Canada, supporting the United Nations in acting to thwart an act of naked aggression. As the largest and most powerful nation in the present world, the U.S. consequently has accepted a leading role in the gulf. The United States is not the villain; let us be clear about it. Nor is it the author of the current crisis in the gulf region. To suggest otherwise is to play into the hands of Saddam Hussein and his skilled propagandists.
Personally, I think we should be grateful that the United States has been willing to accept such a large portion of the responsibility and, as a democracy, has the ability to do so. I also personally think that we in Canada might be grateful that we have such a nation as our neighbour. Canadians would be thinking quite differently if we lived beside a regime such as that now governing Iraq.
I am sure that no one in this government or in this Parliament is at all comfortable with a decision such as this one committing our Canadian Armed Forces personnel to service in the region under armed combat. However, there comes a time when such decisions are necessary. If we are to fulfil our responsibilities and our obligations as a member of the United Nations, this is such a time.
It is a sad time, particularly when you think back to the sudden optimism we shared just one year ago. That was when the Berlin wall and the Iron Curtain came down. Nations of eastern Europe were emerging to enjoy new-found liberty. There were some who even wondered if there would be any future role for our armed forces. There is and it is that which we are now discussing.
Through the history of this country there have been many ifs, like haunting sign posts along the road as aggressors march to their rise in notoriety. What if Hitler had been blocked when he marched into the Rhineland or when he later demanded Czechoslovakia? What if Mussolini had been stopped from seizing Ethiopia?
Today we have the unique situation in which through the United Nations countries of the world are confronting and seek to turn back another such aggressor.
Canada has a clear role and as parliamentarians we have no honest choice but to accept it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I want to say I listened to my hon. colleague's comments and I know that he was speaking from his heart when he said on behalf of all of us we hope for a swift and veiy complete end to these hostilities.
He mentioned in his presentation that there are 28 countries involved in the American-led forces, or in the coalition in opposition to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, Canada being one of them. At the beginning of the combat there were four countries involved and now we are seeing others come in. I think the latest involvement includes perhaps nine different countries out of the 28. Right from the very beginning Canada had indicated its support militarily for the United States-led initiative and, of course, we have now seen in the last number of hours the commitment to CF-18s in terms of flying with the American B-52s in their carpet bombing of parts of Iraq.
My question is actually very straightforward to my friend and that is: Does he understand or perhaps what is his opinion why Canada was so quick off the mark as one of the handful of countries out of the coalition of 28 to get involved in a military commitment with the American forces?


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: Madam Speaker, at a briefing this morning, it was indicated that Canadian aircraft still have not taken part in any new role in the Middle East. They are still flying escort, if you will, for the shipping in the northern Persian Gulf. At the briefing today there was no request for Canadian aircraft to change their role. It is not clear at this point whether they will be asked to change their role.
I think it is significant that under the direction of the government and the Prime Minister the Canadian aircraft were obviously requested to stay out of the first waves of bombing that went over Iraq.
But we cannot back away from the fact that Canada has played a significant role in the United Nations for many years. We have fought in Korea along with other nations in an aggressive stance. We have taken on many occasions, as the member well knows, the peacekeeping role in other assignments in other parts of the world.
January 17, 1991

This is one further such assignment. Canada continues to play its role in the United Nations to support resolutions that were passed by all its members.
I trust that Canada will continue to do the same. I see no reason why Canada cannot, in the future, play a significant peacekeeping role in the situation after this war is over, and certainly in other future situations around the world.
This, in my opinion, will not change Canada's significant position in the United Nations currently or in the future.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his contribution in this particular debate.
I believe it essential that members of Parliament indicate their feelings and express to their constituents their particular perspective in this most serious situation.
We are, however, debating a resolution that reads as follows:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
The resolution itself, it seems to me, is not relevant because hostilities have indeed broken out. This particular resolution, of course, was put on the Order Paper before hostilities broke out a few days ago.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether he agrees that the resolution is academic at this point? Would he not agree that, at some point soon, this House should pass a resolution-hopefully unanimously-indicating its support for the troops that are presently in the Persian Gulf?


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: Madam Speaker, of course as the member says, we are reasserting the motion in front of us. We are reasserting support for motions that have been passed in this House on previous occasions.
We had discussions along the same lines in November. In fact, this Parliament was one of the first seats of government to pass such a resolution, and this is here now only to allow us as individual members to again express our views should we wish to.
Government Orders
This is not taking any particularly new position as far as this House is concerned. Certainly, I think most members here in their discussions have stated their support for our armed service personnel currently in the gulf.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, in July of 1990, I went to the Middle East.
I was rather uneasy but very consumed by anticipation and curiosity. I was going to the Holy Land. Little did I know that this was to be the journey of journeys. Little did I know the experience I would have, the emotions that would stay with me and, most of all, the people I would meet and the knowledge I would gain.
We all know that the Middle East question is one that is composed of a multiplicity of complex circumstances and factors some of which are so fundamentally ingrained and inextricably intertwined that even close examination is not sufficient to truly appreciate and understand the whole question.
I really did undergo a major political metamorphosis as I sat there that morning on the Mount of Olives overlooking the city of Jerusalem. I felt a great sense of personal peace and appreciation for the countryside.
I thought-as I stated earlier-as I stared over the landscape and spoke to the people with me on this day that I had come to a land of beginnings, enormous history and culture, never knowing that I would be facing a day like today when the city is filled with fear, anxiety, confusion and chaos. I was at a loss for words to describe my feelings as I was travelling throughout Israel. I met many people and went to many places; Beitzhour, to Ramallah to Beirzhit, the universities that were shut down for 36 months, to Jerusalem, to Bethlehem and to Jabalayia, to the heart of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the refugee camps where 1.7 million people live in the most over-populated conditions.
It was to be a journey I would never forget. If I read about it or heard about it, or maybe if I had spoken to someone about it I might have doubts about what I saw, but from what I was already told, I had pictures floating by my eyes as we travelled through the refugee camps. When you see those things for yourself, when you see those conditions, and when you talk to those people, and break bread with those people, and you open your mind not only to your sense of history but to the present circumstances and conditions and the future expecta-

Government Orders
tions of those people, all of those diverse groups, it really is quite a different story.
You feel the sense of alienation. You feel the sense of frustration. You feel the sense that these people have a struggle, that each and every one of them is involved, from the youngest child who can walk to the oldest person who can carry something, they are all involved in the human struggle for survival.
And I wonder as I stand here today, Madam Speaker, why all the bravado? Why all the rhetoric about power and about war? Why all the euphoric mesmerization with war? Why is it that we look at the science of destruction and see it as something to be admired, when leaders who have had experience with war and who have probed the questions of how to obtain peace have questions remaining and have lived their lives without answers to questions like places in the Middle East?
Madam Speaker, there are many people involved in this war, including us who have been thrown into this situation. There are people there now who are Canadian citizens and my caring thoughts are with those people and their families. I have a press release here from the Grand Chief of the Mohawks, Chief Joe Norton and he says the Mohawks of Kahnawake have approximately 22 men presently in Kuwait fighting with the United States Armed Forces against Saddam Hussein's Kuwaiti army. These men were among the first to be sent to the American lines before Christmas. As well there are a number of Mohawk men in the Persian Gulf with the United States Marines.
He goes on to say that the United States Army initiated a huge recruiting drive to persuade Mohawk men to join the U.S. Army in 1990. Mohawk men, according to the U.S. Army recruiting officers are sought by the Americans because they are known for their fearlessness, fighting capabilities, and bravery.
There are many such Canadians and other people over there who have been thrown into this war, who have had put before them some very difficult questions.
I guess I should say that those Canadians are watching this debate in Parliament with anxiety and fear as we have watched the events unfold in the gulf. I guess it is good to say we are involved in a debate that few of us
have experience with because we have no experience with the previous world wars. Many of us have no experience in understanding the goings on of military activities and the strategies thereof.
But we have an appreciation for two things perhaps. One, we have an appreciation for the fact that we live in a peaceful country, that we have peace in Canada. We live in a democratic country. We have people out there. It is not just the military and the families that are out there, we also have journalists. There is always the friendly battle between journalists and politicians; we have people like Eric Rankin. We have people like Jim O'Connell and Brian Stewart. These people, in doing their jobs, risk their lives. They go out there to bring us the message and to bring us the news. I know journalists. Their oath is to the truth and to bring the facts to us. Those people are also out there.
Here we are debating the crisis in the Persian Gulf, but I feel that we are a bit late. I also feel that this particular motion is redundant. I believe that we should have been here within the last 10 days, not within the last three days. I believe that many of the things we have wanted to say have been cast aside because circumstances have so drastically changed.
I believe that Parliament must be given explicit right to debate a governmental action to commit Canandians to a potential war zone "before"-and I underline and underscore-"before they are dispatched". I believe that Canada has more to offer to peacekeeping than to war. Perhaps it is my fault. Perhaps it is the way I perceive things that will not allow me to accept anything other than a true struggle for peace. In my heart I believe that peace has to be our objective.
Canada's longstanding commitment to multilateralism and support for international institutions has given Canada a level of credibility matched by few countries. That is what we have to offer this arena.
You heard the Prime Minister today, Madam Speaker, say, "We are not a superpower. We are not a major deterrent". That is what the Prime Minister stated today.
Just look at the lead role taken by Pierre Trudeau and his peace initiative in 1983 to 1984. Let me quote Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
Trudeau. "If our future depended on Canadians alone, we could be confident that it was safe and sound. But no nation today holds its future securely in its own hands. We share this planet with about 160 other nations, all of whom interact with us in a global system, embracing our security, our economy, the health of our environment and the quality of our lives."
I do not want to focus on hindsight at this point but the question is on many of our minds. Did we really put enough effort into diplomacy? Will we ever know? We never had a report from the United Nations telling us that we had exhausted all possibilities.
Those statistics were not released to us or to our Canadian citizens. We will not know. How can we disprove what the government side has to say? How can they disprove what we hold as our position that perhaps we should have held out for more negotiations and for diplomacy to work and for sanctions to work. We will never know. That is the sad situation we are in today.
Only a year ago, citizens throughout the world had high expectations for peace. I had phone calls from Germany the night before the Berlin wall came down. We were at the German embassy, having supper, discussing the possibility of the reunification of Germany. What an exciting debate that was. The next day the wall came down. The cold war was coming to an end.
Today we are faced with a crisis in the new and short lived international order. The Berlin wall is down and the cold war is ended, but just a short year later on August 2, within three hours the situation was quite different. Iraqi troops accomplished their objectives. The Government of Kuwait was overthrown and Iraq was in control.
During the Vietnam War it took a considerable period of time for the American public to come forward in peace rallies to really wrap their minds around what they wanted and what they did not want with the Vietnam war. We had numerous peace rallies across Canada. It did not take that long. We had one that I hold dear to my heart because 10 students in my riding got together and organized a peace rally. We had 400 people in Yellowknife at minus 40 degrees Celsius in support of peace and many calls and letters from my constituents. My
Government Orders
constituents believe that war was not the only option left to us in the Persian Gulf. That is a belief. That is not something that I am using to hurt anybody or to insult anybody. It is something that people believe in. They believe as I do, that sanctions and diplomacy could have achieved our objectives.
Are we so short on leadership, hope and ideals that we have forever rendered the use of sanctions and diplomacy useless? Can we ever expect them to work? Will there ever be the credibility to try and force them in the future? That is a huge question. We have run the risk of losing that particular tool in a crisis in the future. It is interesting to note that today there are numerous peace rallies being held all over the place and people have questions. I ask myself, what will this movement be like if the war becomes unmanageable or has it become unmanageable?
What we have seen in the initial operation is that this war in the Persian Gulf will be like no other war. It will be unparallelled with its intensity and furore. We saw the television clippings of Baghdad lit up like a Christmas tree. There is no joy in that. American power will be unrestrained this time. This time I believe there are no limits. We know that there have been at least 100 bombing runs. This is the beginning of the air portion of the campaign. There has yet to be a ground operation which I feel could be much more devastating in terms of casualties. I believe this is only the beginning and that we have sadly underestimated the capacity that is there for the destruction of human life and for the destruction of a civilization and for the impact that it has on the world psyche in terms of peace.
Canada needs to provide a humanitarian role. Today, there are thousands of refugees running from Iraq. They are fleeing to Iran, of all places. After an eight-year war between Iran and Iraq those refugees are fleeing to Iran. War does not make sense. Refugees need our assistance. Canada must also provide food aid.
I want to take a few minutes to look at the issue. It is not black and white like many have portrayed. I believe that the Secretary of State learned when he travelled to the Middle East that there are some legitimate concerns within the region, such as Iraq's access to the sea. On the other hand, we are dealing with Saddam Hussein.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Saddam Hussein, as everyone knows, has gone to war twice in the past 10 years. He is a man who has grown up with the mentality of a revolutionist and he still is. That is the approach he has endorsed. That is the thinking of this man. In the countryside of the Middle East there has always been the opportunity for violence, and there still is, even when I was in the Middle East last summer.
When Hussein was a young teenager he joined the revolution and I believe that he has stayed there ever since. We have seen Iraqi TV showing pictures of him as a defiant person the day after rallying his troops. He is a Third World leader who wants his hands on the economic jugular of the entire world. He is determined to dominate the Middle East. We knew about his greed for money and for power. That is why the world united in supporting economic sanctions and very eloquently so. I cannot believe that we have done such a fast turnaround. I simply cannot believe the words that were expressed by a number of people, especially leaders in the States, who first endorsed economic sanctions and who-including Senator Edward Kennedy-said to Canadians that we had to give sanctions a chance. The President and Mr. Baker were people who sincerely endorsed sanctions and appealed to everyone involved to give sanctions a chance. Well, we have gone beyond that. We know it. But I believe in my heart that we will never know for sure because we have taken that pre-emptive step in aligning ourselves with our neighbours.
Although you will not hear it from those who wanted to proceed immdiately with military force, the economic sanctions were working to minimize Hussein's power. His exports were all gone; 90 per cent of his imports had been stopped and Hussein was quickly running our of revenue and currency.
We also need to understand that there will be thousands of casualties, maybe tens of thousands. Canada must provide medical and support services to those victims.
We also need to understand the ecological impact of this war. There are over 1,000 oil wells in Kuwait, 350 of which are pressurized, which means if they cannot be blown out and capped they will cause very intense fire storms; 10 million gallons of oil will bum daily; 500,000 tonnes of ash will move to the upper skies adding to the the carbon dioxide buildup, creating holes in the ozone, obstructing sunlight which will force the temperature down.
Canada has the technology and must help to manage these environmental disasters.
It is certain that the financial cost of war will be billions and billions of dollars. The quote I was given is that it costs $3 billion a day.
In conclusion, I would like to end my speech by reading a quotation I think is quite effective.
Canadians know that our security cannot be achieved in isolation or the security of any country, but we have the responsibility to ensure that all our global problems are tackled, not in a combative mode, but through co-operation.
War is the science of destruction and it cannot be stated better than this. A great world leader once said:
When people speak to you about a preventative war, you tell them
to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war. War
settles nothing.
Dwight D. Eisenhower.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I appreciated very much the speech by the hon. member. I do agree with her that war does not solve any problems. I think we should have let sanctions take their place and work. It may have taken about six months and at that point Mr. Hussein would have probably given up.
I would like to ask the member a question. Does she think the Americans gave the wrong signal to Iraq, when the American Ambassador, April Glaspie, said to Mr. Hussein, and I quote:
We have no opinion on the Arab conflict, like your border
disagreement with Kuwait.
This is what the Abassador of the United States said to Mr. Hussein on July 25. Did she think this was a signal to Mr. Hussein that he could invade Kuwait and is there a responsibility on the part of the United States that this happened?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I must admit that I would be one who would be the last to ever be able to understand how the Americans make their decisions and how perhaps someone like Saddam Hussein would respond and would have motive to respond. I must say that I have a lot of questions of my own that are similar. I do not know if the wrong signal was given but I feel in my heart that if we are going to talk about what we might term motives, then from the very onset of this whole conflict American involvement is something that I fail to understand. I have failed to fully appreciate it, if I might put it that way.
January 17, 1991

I always felt the Americans would strike first. I felt particularly sad because I felt for countries like Jordan that are compromised or countries like Israel that would become targets.
That is why I felt so strongly that perhaps we have underestimated the capacity to have prolonged peace instead of starting wars by not allowing diplomacy, the full range of whatever leadership capabilities there are, to take on an effective role and for sanctions to have worked to have allowed that. If that was not happening, why were we not told specifically and explicitly that it was not working and the reasons why?
In terms of this specific question, I cannot pretend to guess at what the motives of the Americans are. I can only look at what has happened. I cannot look back to even the Iraq-Iran war. My colleague, Mr. Barrett, who was here over half an hour ago-
An hon. member. Who made a fantastic speech.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: -talked about the Iraq-Iran war and motives not just of the Americans, but of the Soviet Union, in a number of places throughout the world. I cannot say that I fully appreciate. I cannot say that that was the reason why, but people do have questions about why there is involvement. People do have questions about how many perpetrators there are in a war. There is not just one. There are many. How many fingers are on the trigger of the gun? There are many.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciated the remarks of my hon. friend. They were timely and very thoughtful. I was particularly moved by her comments on how this whole horrible mistake was a reflection of missed diplomatic initiatives and her concern that perhaps enough attention had not been given to sanctions, but also a wide range of other diplomatic initiatives that hopefully could have convinced Saddam Hussein to remove his forces from Kuwait.
I think that she will share with me a feeling that the United Nations has missed an opportunity. We were relieved at the end of the cold war and felt that the United Nations hopefully could play a different role in terms of really seriously solving these international disputes when they came up.
Government Orders
I wonder if she would share her views. Does she feel, as many of us I think do, that the United States in a sense uses influence to such an extent that resolutions are moved in the United Nations that some feel are not only inappropriate but go against the charter of the United Nations. Further, that really we missed an opportunity by simply going to war, by mobilizing allied forces to go in and crush in such a brutal way the Iraqi military and that we raced in as we have done in the past. We know that we do not solve the problems. We perhaps even make greater problems for the future by doing that. Yet we have missed an opportunity with a revitalized and more meaningful United Nations because of this particular action.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the very poignant questions and comments that my colleague has made and I must say that there is an uneasiness about the role in which key players have engaged in this whole crisis. The United States is one of them, but Canada is another. We are thrown into a situation where I really believe we will never know for sure the opportunity that was missed, but I guess you can say that we live to fight another day and to see other opportunities.
The United Nations and our government have the responsibility to encourage member nations to engage in activities that would perhaps reprofile the activities that the United Nations engages in for the security and freedom of countries and the maintenance thereof. I think that is something for which we would hope. Perhaps it is time for a conference as one of my colleagues stated. I have believed, since I went to the Middle East, that the United Nations could spearhead a conference on the Middle East that would deal with very difficult questions. They are not simple, they are very, very difficult questions. The Palestinian question, I believe, is not just a problem for the Palestinians; it is a problem for the world, for all of us to try to work at and with which we can deal.
In this particular crisis, we have indeed missed an opportunity and I believe there was ambiguity. I believe that many people have very many doubts about why that ambiguity existed, whether it was self-serving on the part of one member state.

Government Orders


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I am grateful to the member who was on the government side who did not stand up just now although it was the government's turn to debate and to the Liberal member from York South-Weston who was to speak and who let me go ahead because I have some ill children at home.
Despite its very imprecise wording, most Canadians probably think that we are here debating whether our Armed Forces should be an active part of the invasion against Iraq. Given that some of the 1850 of our fellow citizens present in the gulf are already taking an active part in the war that is fully under way, we all pray that it is almost over. We saw last night in the case of the missiles sent to Israel that anything can happen and we all pray that anything will not happen.
I think that many Canadians must think that this debate has become so superseded by events as to have become irrelevant, redundant and ludicrous. The reason that the debate continues, I believe, is that enough of us here feel that somehow as the debate winds and turns and twists with changing events in the war,-and I think we are all very grateful to the hon. member for Calgary Northeast because I believe it was only he who prevented the House from adjourning last night,-but somehow as the debate carries on and turns and rolls, it gives us a chance to keep sitting here as legislators and elected people from all across Canada to continue to debate the dominant issue of our time.
I think many of us feel that we should be here rather than home. We should be here sitting every day, questioning the government during Question Period and somehow try to address our minds to the issue that is dominating Canadians from sea to sea to sea.
Under a House order, I understand that when nobody else gets up in this debate whether tonight, tomorrow morning, Sunday morning or whenever, the debate is over. A vote is to be held only if all three party leaders agree sometime next week.
Whenever it will happen that the three party leaders agree, of course, remains to be seen. On the issue of the vote, I am one of those who thinks that it would not be useful to have a vote on the matter, but it is not my decision to make.
I might put on the record my understanding of what some legislators elsewhere have done since war began among the members of the coalition. I only have a few to bring information on, but the House might be interested to know that the United States Senate voted, as I am sure most members know, 52 to 47 in favour of authorizing the President to go to war before the war began.
A vote held in the last few days-I believe it was yesterday-was 98 to zero in favour of going to war. The House of Commons in Britain remains in session as the war proceeds, and I think that is of interest to all of us. I hope ours will, too, one way or another.
The House of Commons in Britain voted 600 in favour of war and 57 against. I am told that Italy and France have done the same sort of thing with the same sort of numbers, but I do not have the figures. Italy voted yesterday. France also voted.
You may say: "What about Japan and Germany?" Those countries have no forces on duty there, and neither of those Parliaments have held a vote on the issue.
People wonder how Parliament gets involved in the requirements of the National Defence Act and our new Emergencies Act. I am told and I believe that the declaration of a state of war must be done by a proclamation of the Governor-General of Canada. Similarly, the invoking of emergency powers is legally done by cabinet order.
It appears that the cabinet intends to do neither of those. The Solicitor General indicated today he did not foresee, at this point, the Emergencies Act. Is it not all academic now that up to 2,000 planes a day are flying over Iraq? What about the lives of those 1,850 fellow Canadians who are exposed there?
Now that hostilities have begun and we are fully involved, how can any of us vote against this motion if it comes to a vote in the very vague, ambiguous language it is in. Maybe that is a good reason for not having a vote. I know there is a strong difference of opinion on that.
Every member of this House from every seat and every comer of the country wishes all the members of our Armed Forces a safe return to their families and homes in this country. They will have our full and unanimous support now, I hope. If a withdrawal of Canadian personnel were to create greater risk for personnel from the other countries involved, I think they should now stay.

It may be of interest for you to know, Madam Speaker, that opinion against Canada taking an active part in the war was running strongly against in Southeast Edmonton. My calls were about eight to one against having Canada participate actively in the war.
An estimated 2,000 Edmontonians attended a rally near Edmonton City Hall against the war over the last weekend. Thousands of others have demonstrated across the country, including Ottawa.
There was an audience of almost 200 at a conference on children at the University of Alberta last weekend. I asked if they would indicate by a hand vote how many of them favoured Canada participating in this war actively, and not a single person raised his or her hand.
Presumably, one of the reasons why the people at that conference were opposed to it was the sentiment by the Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War that more children than soldiers will die if war breaks out as, of course, it has. I understand that almost half of Iraq's population, because of the Iran-Iraq war and other factors, is now under the age of 15 years and it would appear that the physicians are correct, far more children will die than soldiers.
Those of us in this Chamber who were opposed to the adoption of the unamended motion, before war broke out-I took the motion to read in the context before the multilateral forces could begin war in Iraq-should not fudge on the horrors since August 2 in Saddam Hussein's self-declared 19th province of Kuwait. Tb the best of my knowledge, the consequences for Kuwaiti citizens and other residents have included more than 500,000 of them fleeing the country. Amnesty International says that Iraqi soldiers have murdered hundreds of unarmed residents and hundreds more have vanished in detention. There are 38 different methods of torture used by the Iraqi occupiers according to Amnesty International. More than 300 premature babies, and I think this has probably bothered Canadians more than anything, are believed to have died when the invaders seized their incubators for shipment to Baghdad. In short, the military followers of Saddam Hussein, in recent months, have forfeited sympathy from people of good-will everywhere. They have violated every principle for which Canada, the United Nations, and public international law have struggled for decades.
Government Orders
Why then was I not able to bring myself to support the use of force against such a madman a few days ago? First, because I think war should come only after there is no further reasonable hope that sanctions will work. Until war began, we could still hope that a full economic embargo and blockade would force Hussein to leave Kuwait completely. I would cite here some of the conclusions in a recent article, co-authored by the highly respected Gary Hufbauer. He writes: "The available evidence indicates that UN sanctions will begin to bite by this coming spring or early summer with a 'high probability of forcing Iraq from Kuwait, as early as the fall'. War might prove quicker but the costs of an attack include the costs probably of thousands of lives", mostly Iraqis, I suspect. Hufbauer went on to say: "Iraq is highly vulnerable to sanctions because of its geography, the nature of its economy and the full, unprecedented co-operation of the sanctioning nations. Specifically, Iraq's only export, as we all know, is oil and that product constitutes nearly half of its GNP. Despite Hussein's exceptionally brutal and complete control of his people, therefore the probability of success of a complete embargo over time", in Hufbauer's view remains over 85 per cent.
Contrary to the view which we have heard much of here, Madam Speaker, that sanctions do not move tyrants, they have been used successfully against ones of many different strips. In the early 1980s, American sanctions contributed to General Jaruzelski's decision to release political prisons and ease regression in Poland. Economic sanctions have also contributed, at least to a limited degree, to the downfalls during the 1960s of Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Ngo Diem in Vietnam and, during the 1970s, to the fall of Idi Amin in Uganda and Anastasio Samoza in Nicaragua. Mussolini is believed to have confided to Hitler that, had the League of Nations included oil in its sanctions against Italy in 1935-36, he would have been forced to withdraw from Ethiopia within a week.
Finally, a very important issue is that of the United Nations institution and its role in the world today. I believe too many people in the world think that this is a United Nations war; it is not. It is true that the United Nations charter allows the use of force but only as a last resort. In this case, I believe that the Security Council resolution 678 of November 29, 1990, should not have

Government Orders
been passed unless and until the sanctions had been given a reasonable chance to work. Geoffrey Grenville-Wood, the National President of the UN Association in Canada, put it very well, the other day when he said: "It was a bad resolution, bad for the United Nations and bad for world peace".
There are so many possible consequences to the position in which the United Nations now finds itself. For one, instead of using the situation for the United Nations as an opportunity to bring in a permanent policy of isolating and embargoing tyrants and invaders, this will become a precedent for the United Nations using violence, killing children and all kinds of horrors that go with war. As somebody who believes strongly in the United Nations, I am profoundly unahappy that that is what is likely to happen.
I might, Madam Chairman, point out here that the United Nations Association in Canada, which ironically enough seems to be the most vocal critic of the United Nations role in this matter, is an organization to promote the UN. In our country, it is strongly felt that it has become a very effective critic of the United Nations, particularly of the Security Council resolution I just referred to.
This association wrote yesterday to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I do not know if it is proper for me to quote from the letter. It is addressed to him. He is not here to speak to the matter himself, but let me say in fairness, that the United Nations Association in Canada is profoundly unhappy with what is happening, how it is happening and how the United Nations performed in this matter.
I do not know that there is much more that I wish to say. In conclusion, we are now in a war. I know that my friends in the New Democratic Party think that you can draw a distinction between the less than 10 nations who have already participated in the air attacks on Iraq. They and others in this House, I suspect, do not want Canada to be involved with air attacks on Iraq.
As I indicated in my talk, I am afraid that now that we are into it, as much as many of us in this House-at least on this side-did not want to see war break out, I salute
the Leader of the Liberal Party for having withdrawn his position that the Canadian troops should withdraw if an act of war broke out. I do not think now, as much as I said in my speech, it is going to be children and civilians that are going to die in the greatest numbers because of this war.
Mr. Hussein said that they are going to fight to the last child. I understand that as of today his wife and children have been moved out of Iraq. I am sure that the last child to die in Iraq will not be one of his. It is always one of the tragedies of dealing with tyrants of this nature.
I think what it comes to is that if a vote is held on this matter, I will vote for it but subject to the points I already have made.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, I guess it is a comment and a question.
I am interested in the hon. member's conclusion. I do respect the sincerity of the member's comments, but obviously the nation of Iraq under the control of the madman we have all heard and seen, Saddam Hussein, has inflicted untold misery on his people over the years. In fact, they tell us that during the eight and a half year struggle with Iran-a war that he inflicted on his own people in a sense-cost the two countries something in the order of one million lives. They tell me that it has been ongoing torture for his own people since 1968 when he took control of that country.
My question is simply this. How do we as an international group, and citizens of the world, like the right hon. member of Quadra said the other day react with to madmen such as this, if it is not through a united effort and indeed, Madam Speaker, through the United Nations?
Mr. Kilgoun Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question and I know from television last night that he has a son who is engaged in the war and so his position is all the more significant than those of us who do not have children in the war. If I had a son or daughter in the war I guess I would be all the more tormented than I am sure he is. I respect very much the sincerity with which he holds his view.
January 17, 1991

One point that is probably worth making is that if the west, and there are a number of countries which I do not need to name, had not provided arms, the latest weapons, the uniforms, the jets, the fighters, the bombs, to both sides-as the member I am sure knows, some countries were providing it equally to both sides-during that horrible war, maybe that war would have been suffocated. Some countries in the west have a very direct involvement in that because, in effect, they were stoking the fires.
We should be ashamed of that. I knew a man-he is dead now-who was a Muslim who said to me one day that if the west wanted it could stop that war in three weeks. But we did not, we did nothing as far as I can see. For every one of those people who died in the war some countries in the west have a direct responsibility for that.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his very candid remarks. It is a very difficult deliberation that we endure in dealing with this issue.
I would like to ask him, with his experience as a parliamentarian, how much latitude he feels Canada will have in engaging in peace initiatives and engaging in a role as peacemaker and mediator if need be in the whole crisis or perhaps in a post-war scenario. What role will Canada be able to perform or be welcome to perform if we do not cease the kind of rhetorical bravado we engage in in our condemnations? Is that the role that we should continue to play? Should we continue to make our pronouncements so provocative and so inflammatoiy that it would limit perhaps our opportunity to resume our traditional role of peacemaker and mediator?


David Kilgour: That is an excellent question, Madam Speaker. Another way of saying it is if we win, we lose. What is going to happen to Canada in the region? Assuming that Iraq is beaten quickly there is going to be a turmoil, instability, enormous nationalism, enormous animus against the countries that participated in this coalition. Is Israel going to be better off after this? Is Syria going to take over part of Iraq? Who knows what genii are going to come out of what bottles after this happens, after Mr. Hussein is removed.
I agree that we should tone down the rhetoric. I mentioned before, and I do not know if the hon. member was here, the young person who was beaten on a bus in Ottawa. I have constituents from Iraq and I am sure that most of them came to Canada to get away from Saddam Hussein.
Government Orders
Canada's role is going to be diminished by this in terms of being a peacemaker. Our stature is going to fall in the world. There is no doubt about it. We are going to be seen as being simply the little brother or the little sister of pax Americarma. We cannot tell our men and women there now to get out, leave your tents and get on the next plane back to Canada. We would be the laughing stock of the 28 countries in the coalition and of the world if we did that. I guess I can be permitted to mention that the words inscribed on the stone out there by John McCrae from In Flanders Field. He happens to be my grandmother's brother and our family hero. He is our biggest family hero, I think. Those words "if you break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep though poppies grow in Flanders Field". How can we live up to John McCrae's wish for Canada if we tell our people now they have to get out?
On the question of whether we can tell them not to take an active part in the raids over Baghdad, and I am inclined as the member knows to think we should not be taking an active part with the CF-18s and that kind of thing. We would be accused of cutting and running now and I am glad the hon. member for Saint-Denis seems to agree.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I have the greatest admiration for my colleague from Edmonton Southeast who has just spoken. I particularly listened to the philosophic point of view that he is able to bring with his wonderful background and knowledge. Frankly, it is Friday night, the Sabbath has fallen and normally I would be with my family having cooked a Sabbath meal and lit the Sabbath candles and said our prayers. I really cannot go today and my family, my husband, my mom and dad will have to manage with their own soup and matzo balls, regretfully is all I can say.
I really feel that this in a sense is where we should be trying to find what the next step, the next move is going to be for the hon. member for Saint-Denis and myself, the hon. member for Mount Royal, into some discussions that are not going to be easy, but hopefully will be fruitful. I certainly say to you in this House and to you, the hon. member for Saint-Denis, that I appreciate and I understand the role and support you give to your Palestinian perspective. I know you will accord me the same right and I think we both respect the rights of all peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, to live in peace and harmony together. I know that he has spoken in that respect in the international arena. As I was standing here and thinking about this, I was wondering-

January 17, 1991
Government Orders


Marcel Prud'homme: The honourable lady said I understand the feeling of the hon. member for Saint-Denis for the Palestinian. That is a debate. You must understand my feeling for Israel, too, because if I let an hour go by people will say there is one sided Prud'homme versus one-sided lady, and you know I will not accept that. I am a Canadian. I believe in peace and justice for all and in the Middle East peace and justice for all means all! She was with me internationally when I made sure Canadians try with 1,000 international people to vote you know how. If you accept this, you should be complete. Members voting against Iraq for having used gas, I am the one who did that. It is not other members. Be complete but do not put me in this debate with you.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think it would be wise for hon. members to get into debate as our rules suggest.
As we know, it has been like this all day, nerves are very frayed and emotions run very high.


Marcel Prud'homme: Oh, no, I am very cool.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will not comment on the hon. member's comment.


Marcel Prud'homme: But I will not let anything go by anymore.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Actually, the period for question and answer is over. I would ask the hon. member for Mount Royal to conclude very quickly, please.


Sheila Finestone: I had no intention of misquoting my colleague in any way. I was really trying to get from my hon. colleague, the member for Edmonton Southeast, who was speaking if he sensed that same feeling of powerlessness that I feel sitting here tonight at a moment when the whole issue of this debate is redundant. We are at war. Israel is at risk. Those families who should be sitting down to a happy Sabbath dinner are wondering if the bomb is going to fall, when, where and
how. I cannot stop it and it is of great concern and I wonder if he feels as powerless as I do?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Rather quickly, please. The hon. member for Edmonton Southeast.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I do. The terrible thing is that it is a high holiday today. Knowing the person who is pushing the buttons to send the missiles, if he has any more mobile Scud missiles, what is he going to do tonight? Is he going to send chemical missiles, if he has any left? It is hard to contemplate that these kinds of things could be going on at the end of the 20th Century.
May I just add before I am cut off that I personally was delighted to see that the member for Saint-Denis, was reaching out, perhaps not in a gentle way, but to try to show that he was not in dispute with the member for Mount Royal. I hope that as time goes by those members will continue to reach out to each other. I salute both of them for doing it. I hope it continues in the future.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate, although I wish, as other members do, to be very frank, that this debate was not necessary.
It has been a very difficult and very disturbing week for all citizens of the world, for Canadians and certainly for members of Parliament.
I would like to begin by reassuring all Canadians, particularly those from Brandon-Souris whom I have the honour to represent that the decision on this motion is not one which any member of this Parliament, irrespective of party, takes lightly.
I am certain there is no one in this country who wants a war. The reality that as of the other evening that we are again at war, is one which has spawned an obvious sense of mental fatigue and mental depression here on the Hill and elsewhere in the country.
The coming down of the Berlin wall occurred so quickly it was almost an unbelievable achievement. That

led many to conclude and to hope that the type of hostilities which had characterized the earlier parts of the century, the 1930s and the 1940s and since then the cold war, Korea, would not again be necessary. The despair that has resulted from the fact that we are now at war is evident in the House. I think it has been evident today because we have not had our finest moments in this House today, I am sorry to say. It is evident in the faces of members in the House. I sense it in the employees of the Hill when I talk to members of the maintenance staff. I sense it in the faces of the young people who serve the House as Pages.
I would like to note categorically the fact that much of the world is again at war is evidence of failure. It is evidence of our failure as nations and as people to resolve our differences by other means. I think this is a particularly difficult failure for many people to understand, and particularly for young people to understand. TVvice during the course of the week there were large groups who came to visit my constituency office. I wanted to say to them that I understand their apprehension with what was then the possibility of war and with the reality of war that is here now.
One of the things I guess that troubles me a little bit about this debate is the fact that to a significant degree those of us who are participating in this debate are perhaps older than we would wish to be, and perhaps we are conscious of our age at a time like this because we are conscious of the fact that chronologically we are not able to represent in a physical sense, particularly those young Canadians who are so concerned.
To them I would say I believe I understand their fears and apprehensions and maybe try to say that I believe that because I too was once young. I remember being very young during World War II, watching with nervousness the events there, even though I was only a child who was well aware of the fact that my uncle was there; he had been wounded and had malaria; and the immense excitement when I found out he was coming home. I remember following the Korean war with a great degree of detail, even though we did not have the communication devices available to us then as we have now.
I think I can understand in that sense the feelings of youth. I would also say that when I approach this debate I am very conscious of the fact that I speak as a father. I
Government Orders
am very proud to be able to say that my two daughters are in the gallery watching as I speak.
So to my youthful constituents, I am very sincere when I say that I understand their concerns and I hope that we can prove that we understand their concerns even though we may not always agree.
There is something particularly numbing about this war, due to the fact that it is so vivid before our eyes. As I sat in the lobby this afternoon, I watched live television from Tel Aviv and from Jerusalem, two communities I have had the opportunity to visit. I watched the journalists live as they listened to the sirens, sirens that they could hear and I could hear, thanks to television. I watched them put on the gas masks and then with relief remove them again because the alarms tonight so far at least have proven to be false.
Live television certainly brings us closer to the war than we, as Canadians, would otherwise be. I think we have to be conscious of the fact that, however, while the war seems to be taking place in our living room, we are still distant from it. Fortunately for us we are distant from the grossness that is war and may we always have that privilege of being distant from it.
I am conscious, however, that there are residents of my constituency somewhere in the Middle East, somewhere in the Persian Gulf. Some have been there and came back, having volunteered to go. I am conscious of the fact that I have a constituent in Brandon who has family in Baghdad as of this moment. He, who is from that city, watches with a special fear and awareness as to what the reality of the war may be.
I am also conscious of the fact that although we are devoured by this particular crisis, and indeed it is a crisis of immense proportion, there are other wars occuring in the global community today that we should not forget, even though we tend to do so. I had plans now changed because of the crisis in the Gulf to be visiting part of the horn of Africa next week. There are civil wars in Ethiopia, in Somalia, in Sudan, to name but three as well as famines in those areas which may take many, many lives. In our resolve to deal with the crisis in the Persian Gulf I hope we are reminded of the fact that there are other ongoing conflicts which need our attention, even though we are not inclined to be as conscious of them.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
We must also pay some attention to the question, why is this struggle and debate taking place and how should we be responding to it. The key point on which we all agree is that we wish there was no need for war. However, the war to which we refer really began on August 2. The question in many countries of the world, despite what the newspapers may have been telling us these last few days, was not whether or not some nation would commence a war but is how we would respond to a war that began some five or so months ago. That war began for a variety of reasons when the Iraqi forces led by Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
I firmly believe that the real key to world security and peace lies in the principle of collective security. I believe-and I know there are differences on this point within this House-that the principle of collective security has been tested these last few weeks and days. The principle of collective security, as I understand it, requires that all members of that community who are part of that pact respond to those who are in need and to those who are the victims of aggression.
One of our difficulties in Canada these last few days has been the fact that Kuwait is a long way away, that most of us know nothing of this nation which was invaded last summer. I suspect many people had almost forgotten about the invasion, forgotten about the occupation and forgotten about the aggression. The principle of collective security to me suggests that we, as members of the United Nations, or as members of the global community, have a moral responsibility, as well as a military and political responsibility, to respond to those who are the victims of aggression. If we turn the other cheek and ignore this invasion, as some of my constituents have suggested we should, not only do we fail those who live in Kuwait and those who are victims of this aggression, but we would fail the very principle of collective security, we would fail part of the undertakings which we accepted when we joined the United Nations.
As I think about the events which have been unfolding these last few days, I am reminded of my own historical studies. I spent a fair amount of time studying European diplomatic history. Curiously, my masters thesis at the University of Oregon was on British pacifism which was so closely interrelated to the appeasement policies of 1930s. In my mind it was directly related to the outbreak
of war in 1939. As I look at this part of history, I cannot help but remember the great future which so many people felt existed for the League of Nations at the end of World War I. They dreamed that we could put together a new world community to help ensure that the holocaust that was World War I would never have to be relived again.
One of the great difficulties of a world organization such as the League of Nations or the United Nations, is the fact that it places upon its members obligations to come to the assistance of others who may be distant or not well understood.
To some degree, it requires a willingness on the part of those nations to give up part of their sovereign decision making powers. When the League was tested, as it was on several different occasions in the 1930s, and when the world community was tested by the aggressions which occurred then, the world community failed to respond.
In our failure to respond to the invasion of Manchuria in 1931, in our inability to respond adequately to the invasion by Mussolini of Abyssinia or Ethiopia in 1935, in our failure to deal with the Hitler of 1936 at the time of the occupation of the Rhineland, or later when he invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938, a serious mistake was made. Not only did those who were making decisions at that time, in my mind, fail their brother nations elsewhere in the world, not only did they fail to respond adequately to the aggression which was occurring, they also failed the very principle of collective security. In doing so, they helped destroy whatever hope remained for the League of Nations.
The tragedy of those several failures was that those aggressor nations clearly were encouraged by the failures of others to respond to their aggression. They concluded in that lack of response that those who would oppose them were weak, and they were encouraged to continue with their aggressive policies. Tragically, the end result was that at a later time and at a much greater cost, the nations of the world had to respond to a Japan, to an Italy and to a Germany.
The cost in human life was immensely greater in the period from 1939 to 1945 than it would have been if the nations of the world had joined together in 1931, 1935, 1936 or even in 1938. I draw a parallel between the
January 17, 1991

diplomatic challenges of the 1930s and the challenge which faces the world in 1991. In doing so, I am not trying to equate Saddam Hussein, the individual, with the evil that was Adolf Hitler. I am not in the position to draw that parallel, to know whether it is an adequate, accurate or appropriate one.
I think, however, there is a very definite parallel in the challenge facing the members of the United Nations today as there was to the League of Nations in the 1930s. I share the views of others who have suggested there is something bizarre about us here in Parliament debating an issue that has now been out-distanced by events.
I do believe that the issue before us, to a very large degree, is whether or not we are going to provide support to those members of the United Nations-in this case, Kuwait-that have asked for it. Are we going to fulfil what I consider to be our moral obligations to assist a member state in a time of difficulty?
I would prefer, for all sorts of obvious political reasons, that the United Nations flag was flying there in the company of the Canadian flag, but I understand why that is not possible at this time. I would urge members of this House not to dwell on that unduly. Resolution 678 of the United Nations, in which members of the Security Council freely participated, clearly gives us the mandate to proceed as we have. I am satisfied that we are there as part of the United Nations community. I have no difficulty with the question of who is in command.
I am sad, however, that the debate is necessary. I am sad and depressed that there continue to be the Saddam Husseins of this world who, for whatever reason, are determined to make their mark in history at the expense of others. I am sad that they, in their Machiavellian and diabolical manner have concluded that their best military defence is an attempt to bring Israel into a war by the unprovoked attacks which occurred last night.
As others have done, I would like to commend the Israeli government and the Israeli people for the immense discipline and self-restraint which they have demonstrated since then. I do not know, if I were responsible for such a decision, that I would have the will to restrain myself under those circumstances.
Government Orders
I am saddened by the fact that the diplomatic community, the world community, has once again failed. But I believe that there are times in our history, and this is one of them, when we must, given this scenario which has unfolded, respond to certain individuals and to certain communities with force because they seem to know no other language. I had hoped that the massive build-up which has occurred in the Persian Gulf would act as a deterrent to Saddam Hussein. Perhaps it would have to any individual who is more rational than he.
Now that we are there, now that we are at war, my concluding message, and I would hope the message of this Parliament, would be to all who are participating in the Canadian forces, to all who are participating in the forces of the coalition, that we are proud of them. They are willing to serve on our behalf, they are willing to put their lives at risk in support of the traditions and beliefs which are theirs and which are ours. I would hope also that this Parliament would send a very clear message, even though we may disagree on how they got to be there, that we are with them in spirit and in fact. We hope the war which is now taking place will prove to be a very short one and that the cost to human life will be as minimal as it possibly can be. That is my hope, that is my wish.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I listened with attention to the hon. member's speech and I was distressed by parts of it. He is trained as an historian and has worked as an historian and it is perhaps the lack of a sense of history that is one of the great burdens most of us carry today. If I heard him correctly, he made a number of comparisons between Mr. Hussein and Mr. Hitler and then, at the end of about four minutes of his speech, said something to the effect that he was not in a position to say whether the one is like the other. Where I come from, with respect, that is called sophistry. If he is going to make a case that one is indistinguishable from the other, he should have the courage at the end of his arguments to draw that conclusion.
I would ask him if he has read the article that was published widely by Gary Hufbauer and Kimberly Elliott on the question of sanctions. It includes the quote that I referred to in my talk about Benito Mussolini having confided to Hitler that, if the League of Nations had included oil in its sanctions against Italy, he would have been forced to withdraw from Ethiopia in a week.

Government Orders
Lastly, I would ask him why it is that the United Nations Association of Canada, Douglas Roche, our former ambassador for disarmament, and many other people, I think it is fair to say, are quite distressed-a mild word-as to what has been done in terms of sanctions, and what is being done by the United Nations?
Why is it that he thinks that the United Nations Association of Canada, headed by its president, Jeffrey Grenfell Wood, is so concerned about what is happening? I would ask if he would speak to those matters?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, I have two or three points in response.
What I suggested during the course of my remarks was that I saw a very real parallel between the diplomatic challenges that faced the League of Nations in the 1930s and what faces the United Nations and member states in 1990-91.
I said I did not believe I was in a position to determine whether Saddam Hussein had the same type of destructive personality as did Adolf Hitler. The hon. member seemed to be disturbed by that, but perhaps he has a greater knowledge of those two individuals than I do.
I think I understand Adolf Hitler fairly well, having read most of the biographies. I have not read biographies with respect to Saddam Hussein.
With respect to the question of sanctions, as the hon. member knows, sanctions have been employed as a first step in many instances. Sometimes they have been employed as a final step. Their record of success is not as great as we would wish. I see no evidence that sanctions employed to date with respect to Iraq have had an effective impact on the military capacity of the Iraqi government.
Without doubt, there has been a very substantial impact on the citizens of Iraq. If, indeed, that were a democracy, where there was some form of opportunity for expression of public opinion, then the impact of those sanctions on the citizens of Iraq might have been able to have made itself felt through the political system on the Government of Iraq.
But in a society where there is no such democracy, where cabinet ministers have been removed with apparently no evidence whatsoever and executed at the will of Saddam Hussein; where chemical warfare has been used on the citizens of the country, I think there is no opportunity whatsoever for an expression of popular discontent as a result of sanctions to have any kind of political and/or military effect.
I see no evidence that they have succeeded. I see the Iraqi Force, having invaded a sovereign state, having no inclination to withdraw whatsoever.
I see an immense amount of injustice that has been done to a nation and to its people. I am aware, however, of the historical differences which exist in the Middle East with respect to the difficulties of drawing boundaries, et cetera, but irrespective of the fact that there is a history of outstanding difficulties. There is nothing in those difficulties; nothing in my understanding of how nations and people should respond to each other that in any way justifies the actions of the Iraqi government in the invasion of Kuwait.
There is nothing in those difficulties and in the historical problems which have existed that in any way in my mind absolves us as Canadian people, or absolves us as a Canadian government, or absolves us as a Canadian Parliament from accepting what I consider to be our moral obligations; to come to the assistance of that same country-Kuwait.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, I am very impressed with the parallels and with the sense of history that the hon. member for Brandon- Souris has, and with his ability to bring that out in his course of debate. I think his credentials speak for themselves in that area of history. It is most interesting to note that his thesis was on the appeasement policy of Britain during previous wars. It was very, very impressive.
One of the things on which I want to question is the point he made that we have been outdistanced by events in this war in relation to the debate that is taking place this evening. Some hon. members yesterday, for example, pointed out that the question is perhaps academic or moot in the sense that we are engaged in war, and why are we debating it?

I feel personally that it is very, very important that we as a Parliament show the same sort of solidarity that has been shown in Britain. I would simply like the member to comment on that sense of solidarity and us being behind the world community in this effort to rid itself of a demon.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to make it very clear that I accept the fact that there have been and continue to be important differences of opinion on this matter. I impugn no motives whatsoever to those who would differ from the positions which I have expressed.
I believe it is important to make certain that those who are fighting abroad and are prepared to fight abroad, understand very clearly that they are doing something which has the support of the people back home, because if they do not have that support, the most logical question in the world which they will ask themselves is: "why am I here?"
If I may say so, and perhaps I am entering into an area that I should not, I am aware of the fact that the hon. member who has just asked me the question has a son in the military within 80 miles of the Kuwaiti border. I would think that the hon. member's son and those who are there with him need that kind of inner contentment that comes from believing, not only that they are doing something which is right, but that other people believe they are doing something that is right.
On behalf of myself and my colleagues, I would like in a very personal sense to ask if you would convey our message of support to your son.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the hon. member when he says that we have to convey to our troops in the Middle East our unanimous support for their efforts in what they are doing there.
Can I ask the member how that is achieved by a resolution that says that this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations and ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait? Would he not agree with me that it would be far more beneficial and far more direct, if his intention is to express support for the troops in the Middle East, to adopt a motion unanimously in this House stating in clear language that that in fact is the case?
Are you asking the troops who are putting their lives on the line in the Middle East to interpret from this
Government Orders
particular motion, this redundant motion that was put on the Order Paper before hostilities broke out, to read into this particular motion, a motion that says that we support the United Nations, support for them?
Would he not agree that it would be far more prudent, far more reasonable, if he wants to achieve his objective, to withdraw this particular motion and to replace it with a motion that will have the entire House unanimously show its support for the Canadian troops in the Middle East?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, as you will recall, there was a similar motion placed before this House in November which passed the House but did not have the support of all members and/or all political parties. Those who are there serving in the Canadian forces know why they are there and they in my mind, interpret the failure of this House to support this resolution as a lack of support for their commitment. Having dealt with this motion, other members of the House I am sure, under House rules, are certainly in a position to introduce motions which they would wish to present.
The item before the House which we have been debating for three days and may debate all night is clearly that this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in ending aggression by Iraq against Kuwait. That is the motion which is before the House as you know well, Madam Speaker, and that is the motion on which hon. members will have to decide whether they will vote yea or nay.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I am very glad to rise in opposition to Government Order 27 which is:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
The NDP caucus and in fact the party through its executive after good discussion has opposed this war and this motion since all of us in the House and outside the House know the motion means authorization of this war and the motion was entered before the war began. Now that Canada is in this war we still oppose it and in fact what is happening deepens our reason for opposing it even more.
This war is already doing serious damage far beyond Baghdad and Iraq through creation of refugees and other disruptions of the economy. There was an attempt last night by Saddam to extend the war further by another unprovoked attack on another nation not partic-

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
ipating in the war by a missile bombing of Israel. His goal of course was to bring more Arab nations to his side.
So far, thanks to the truly heroic self-control of the government and the people of Israel that move by Saddam has not succeeded. I salute Israel for its courageous patience and I salute the 3,000-year history of its ancestors up until this time in its struggle to live in peace.
There is still a danger that this war can become a renewal of wars that have lasted for centuries; wars between the Arabs and the Muslims on one hand, and between the peoples of European origin on the other, the new crusades as my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has put it. All the more reason then to negotiate an end to this war now; to bring together a conference on peace in the Middle East which the United Nations asked for, particularly to resolve the Arab-Israeli dispute. Canada's struggle is different than Israel's because of its place in the world. However, I believe the same principle of restraint must apply to Canada. I believe that by pursuing this war it is most likely to cause much more harm than good to the people of Kuwait, the people of the Middle East, and to the whole natural world.
Saddam was certainly wrong to invade Kuwait, entirely wrong. Even if he had a legal dispute with Kuwait, which he may, he should have negotiated it or gone to the world court, not start a war.
The U.S.S.R. was also wrong to arm its ally or colleague, Saddam. The U.S.A. was also wrong to sell him arms, to make him its protege against Iran. France was also wrong to sell him arms. Canada was also wrong to sell components for the U.S. helicopters that were sold to Saddam. President Bush was wrong to signal to Saddam a week before the invasion and, more than that, was wrong to not concern itself, right up to the time of the invasion, with a so-called Arab-Arab border dispute. He was wrong to refuse his congressional committee's recommendation at that time in July for sanctions to be imposed to stop Saddam.
However, our nations have contributed to the creating of Saddam, the brutal invader. There was an attempt to use sanctions to deprive Saddam of the revenue and the
material means to maintain his war. Sanctions were starting to do that, cutting off 97 per cent of his revenue. After the U.S. election, the U.S. doubled its military in the gulf and carried on some commercial deals with some of the other countries concerned. The momentum for war became unstoppable. Now the war is on. Many Canadians still oppose this war, many of all ages, who are not in this House.
Yesterday, the major churches of Canada issued statements on this war. For example, the Most Reverend Michael Peers, leader of Canada's Anglicans, has rejected the notion that war in the gulf is justified. He said yesterday:
It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, in flagrant violation of international law and with its foul atrocities against the Kuwaiti people, is unacceptable and contemptible. Nevertheless, the decision of the Canadian government to commit our forces to war and the call today from Canadian politicians to close ranks and support the war effort is deeply problematic. There are issues here upon which religious leaders have a duty to comment.
He proceeds then to list the traditional Christian criteria, the six principles of a just war, and to measure the present war by their standards. He concludes:
This war in the Persian Gulf does not meet the tests provided by Christian tradition for a morally justifiable engagement at this stage. The Prime Minister has commented that Canadian participation in combat roles in this conflict is both reasonable and moral. I reject his sentiments and his reasoning-. I call upon all Canadians of good will to pursue all efforts to bring about peace and the cessation of this destruction.
Madam Speaker, he has found the war lacking on those grounds.
So does the General Secretary of the Canadian Council of Churches, Dr. Stuart E. Brown, in a statement endorsed by the heads of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Moderator of the United Church of Canada and the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. The statement says in part:
War cannot resolve the Gulf Crisis. We call on Canada to work urgently at the United Nations to dissuade the Security Council from authorizing the use of force, either to try to expel Iraq from Kuwait, or to depose Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq. We urge Canada to work through the United Nations in support of economic and diplomatic measures toward peace and justice for all people in the Middle East-.

The most effective instrument with which to register the unacceptable character of this invasion of Kuwait is economic sanctions-.
This is not the time for ultimata; rather it is the time to search for non-military solutions, even if that means compromise and a less-than-ideal resolution. War will most certainly not produce an ideal solution.
I quote also from a letter today sent to the Prime Minister from Monsignor Robert Lebel, Bishop of Valley-field and President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, with copies to the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader of the New Democratic Party. Referring to the bombing of Israel by Iraq last night, he says in part:
This latest act of Iraqi aggression is not sufficient justification for Canada to escalate its participation in the military conflict.
He said he had heard it was being considered in the cabinet.
He continues:
We maintain that this is a war that should never have been started. Economic sanctions coupled with diplomatic efforts by the international community were simply not given the time required to be effective.
He calls on the Prime Minister and the Canadian government to do three things:
(a)	refrain from any further military involvement by Canada in the Persian Gulf War;
(b)	urge the UN Security Council to initiate steps for a cease-fire and a resumption of negotiations for a peaceful settlement;
(c)	concentrate energies in developing an international plan of action for humanitarian aid and assistance regarding all affected countries in the Middle East.
Here is a statement by the Right Reverend Dr. Walter Farquharson, Moderator of the United Church of Canada:
We deplore the bombing of Baghdad and the claim that it was a success. It is, in fact, a tragic failure, even as the invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqi forces was a failure-.
We reject the claims of our leaders that there were no alternatives. We remain committed to the principles of a just world order and to the United Nations, but in light of modem warfare and the technological changes in weaponry, we are convinced that ultimately world order is only effectively pursued by non-military means.
Government Orders
Human beings are capable of creating terrible weapons and of wreaking unthinkable destruction. They are also capable of resolving their conflicts, reconciling with enemies, and healing wounds. They must take responsibility for the good or evil effects of their actions.
In the wake of these terrible events, we implore the leaders of all countries to draw back from inflicting even greater destruction on the people of the Gulf region and from placing our own relatives serving in the Gulf in greater danger-.
We commit ourselves before God to the dreadful but sacred task of laying on healing hands for all who have been wounded in these terrible events. We have no other choice because we believe God's intention for all of us is the lowering of every clenched fist and the healing of every wounded nation.
We of the NDP opposed this war before the bombing of Baghdad, and we oppose it now. We say to pull back our troops out of the theatre of war and find better peacemaking roles for them; to plan with the United Nations members for a peace conference, including an Arab-Israeli one; and to start now helping to provide urgent medical, food and other help to the refugees and displaced persons of this war.
As my final comment, Madam Speaker, some have suggested that a stand such as my party's is too partisan and partisan at an inappropriate time. I say no, it is not partisan.
I have been working for peace since the late 1940s. It was the result of my experience in World War II, in which I had to ask myself how we got into the fix in which Christians considered it their duty to God as well as to the king to kill Christians. How did we get ourselves into that fix? I came to the conclusion that it arose principally from the economic conflicts between countries, which need to be moderated before they break out in war.
I was active in the peace movement for 10 years before I joined the CCF-NDR I would not have joined if I did not judge it to be a parliamentary party committed to peace. I continued active in the peace movement.
I was very happy to represent my party yesterday afternoon at a rally of about 2,000 people in downtown Toronto opposing the war. I believe the movement is growing.
We are not taking this stand against the war to distance ourselves from the government, with the idea of advantage in the next election. We are taking this stand as

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Canadians. Many of us are taking this stand on the basis of our religious convictions, which I, for one, held before I became a socialist and continue to hold and continue to practise. We are taking this stand as loyal Canadians trying to serve the best interests of the Canadian people and as citizens of the world, believing that in the best interests of all the peoples of the world, now and in the future, the thing to do is to end this war. We are saying to stop the war now and do all that is possible and necessary, along with other countries, to build peace now.


Don Boudria: I have listened to the comments from our colleague and I have had many occasions to speak with him in the past about his feelings on such issues. I can understand his feelings and sympathize with them a lot. I know that our colleague is a man of the cloth and he has very strong feelings on issues involving peace. I congratulate him for those. I do not always agree with him on his views, but I think Parliament needs someone who has that kind of a view to constantly remind us of the importance of peace. I want to tell him that even on those occasions, albeit rare, when I do not totally agree with him, he is nevertheless a conscience for this House in those issues. Again, I congratulate him.
I want to get to a specific point with regard to what is happening today. In my opinion, we are discussing a motion that I believe was wrong when it was presented to this House. It is not what the government wanted as an answer. The government really recalled Parliament to find out whether or not Parliament would agree to a Canadian participation in a war effort, should there be one.
I would have disagreed with that proposition; I would have voted against it. I still think it is the question that should have been put. Nevertheless, that being said, it would be redundant now anyway. Would our colleague not agree with me that the motion we have before us was the wrong motion to put to start with? Even if he does not agree with that proposition-although I think he does-it is redundant in any case. There is absolutely no meaning in discussing today whether or not we agree or disagree with resolution 678 of the United Nations, once it has been placed into full force, including the military component of it. This is just slightly worse than redundant. Could he comment on that, please?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I thank the hon. member for his encouraging remarks and for a very pertinent question. Yes, the resolution was a wrong resolution because it was clearly asking for an answer to a question it does not state. It stated a motherhood question: whether we want to support the UN in stopping aggression. Of course we do. But this was not the issue. As the member has quite rightly said, the issue was whether we support war as the means chosen by the United States and others within the United Nations.
It reflects the point that has been made by some previous speakers as to the methods used by the United States to win certain allies to its cause, including the fact that Canada-or rather the Prime Minister-as a reward for loyal support in war, now seems assured of a seat in the Mexico trade talks.
There are other deals with other countries.
On the question of withdrawing the resolution to find a better one, I would say by all means the government should withdraw it. If it wants to put one in that would ask for support in the war, I would oppose that.
If it wants to put one in that divides the questions and says whether we support the war, the decision of the politicians to make war, or whether we oppose the decision of the politicians to make war, we still give all support we can to those individual men and women who under orders, having trained and become competent in their work, are risking their lives to carry out this government's orders. I would certainly continue to support those men and women, but I do not support the war to which this government has sent them.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully and attentively to my colleague's speech and I want to tell him that I too put a great deal of faith in peace and do not like, and indeed dislike, war and states of war.
Every now and then, he mentioned that his speech was not partisan and that his decision was dictated much more by his conscience. I respect that, because I think that it should be taken for granted that each of us has to live with his or her conscience and is allowed, in this country, to make decisions according to it.
January 17, 1991

Government Orders
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, when responding to my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, he could not refrain from playing politics and showing his anti-American bias. I did not expect that from him and it clashed with the general tone of his speech.
I cannot help but wonder why, after making an excellent speech, and convincing at that, my colleague apparently was unable to set aside his partisanship while dealing with the critical situation presently facing Canada and particularly the people who are in the gulf.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, the hon. member may be right. In fact, I have rewritten my speech several times, or replanned it and rewritten it entirely once in order to make the point that I made in the speech.
Speaking more extemporary, yes, I did take a swipe at the activities of the President of the United States. I entirely believe in what I have said, but if the hon. member feels that I have spoiled a good effect of my earlier speech, then it is quite possible that he was right.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, I am amazed when some of the opposition members and members of the New Democratic Party refer to the resolution and the motion in question. It reads:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
If they were to read the motion, it would be clearly understood. The member knows full well that this House voted on the original motion on November 29. That vote was won, with two to one in favour of the motion. It is simply reaffirming our support for the United Nations.
If we are indeed a citizen of the world, what does he expect us to do? Are we to back away from the United Nations or not act collectively with the rest of the world against Saddam Hussein, which basically is what it comes down to? It is the rest of the world, with the exception of a few, versus Saddam Hussein. Do we remove ourselves from international responsibility? Do we remove ourselves from a sense of collective responsibility? That is the question that I ask of the member.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I must say that the member who questioned me appears to be confused about the meaning of the resolution. Paragraph 2 of the demands says that the United Nations authorizes member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 666 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and restore international peace and security in the area.
It does not say that we have to go to war to do that. It does not say that. It is this government, of which the hon. member is a supporter, that interprets that as saying we go to war.
There are two major faults with that use-or abuse, I would say-of the UN resolution. First of all, the UN resolution did not say that it is time now-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I did not interrupt the hon. member. They did not give any report. There was no report from the monitoring committee on sanctions. They did not resolve the question of the effectiveness of sanctions; they simply left it vague. That was a veiy faulty resolution. But as it stands, it does not order us, or even ask us, to go to war.
Second, if it did intend, without saying it, that we should go to war, it did not provide any democratically controlled United Nations command. There was no authority of the United Nations. It is not a matter of whether there is a blue flag. It is not a matter of whether the American general is to be called the United Nations general. It is a matter of whether the action is under the authority of the United Nations and under the control of the United Nations. It is a matter of when the United Nations will say when to stop. What this does is to encourage any member who says he is co-operating with Kuwait to do anything that he thinks he might do and claim the United Nations justification.
That is a fraud, Madam Speaker.
[Editor's Note: For continuation of proceedings see Volume C.]

Thursday, January 17, 1991
[Editor's Note: Continuation of proceedings from Volume
B.]


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I have been a member of this House for approximately six and a half years, and by far this is the most important and most serious matter that has been considered, in my view, in this House in the last six and a half years.
As I speak here tonight, my country, your country- our country-is at war. I do not believe that Canadians fully comprehend and have come to grips with what it means to be at war today.
We are not debating a resolution; we are discussing the fact that Canada is at war. The resolution before this House-and I would like to read it for the record-reads:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
This particular resolution was put on the Order Paper before war broke out. A lot has happened in the last few days. It has been a most remarkable week, a week that many people will never forget in all their lives.
This Parliament was reconvened on Monday because Tuesday happened to be January 15, the artificial deadline that was imposed, after which the United States and other member states of the United Nations had the authority to use whatever means necessary.
There was a meeting a few days before between Secretary of State of the United States, James Baker, and Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz of Iraq. As we know, those talks did not produce a peace, and a few days later the Secretary-General of the United Nations tried one last time to convince Saddam Hussein to quit Kuwait. It is academic now, the whole question of whether we should have been called back earlier. This House started its discussion on Tuesday. We debated throughout the day. The deadline came and went on midnight a few days ago, January 15. On Wednesday night this House was in
session and debating this particular resolution, and the bombs started to fall on Baghdad, the bombs started to fall in Kuwait and Iraq.
Following that initial bombardment the night of January 16, the stock market went up and the price of oil went down. All the economic indicators went in the complete opposite direction than the experts predicted. There was a sense of satisfaction in the United States of America, and indeed throughout the world, that somehow that particular bombardment, that particular military operation at the beginning of the war, was successful. People were talking about a quick resolution, a quick ending to this particular war.
But just last night, once again there was horror in the Middle East, this time in Israel. Scud missiles were launched from Iraq, an unprovoked attack on a non-participating country in the Middle East. It was clear what Saddam Hussein was trying to do, but the Israelis-the people of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa-had to suffer through the unspeakable horror of the possibility of a chemical attack, chemical warheads on those Scud missiles. We thank the Lord that chemical warheads were not used. We thank the Lord that casualties were not more severe.
Those people who were so positive on the night of January 16 became a little more pessimistic on the night of January 17 because the so-called dogs of war were unleashed. We went to bed last night not knowing whether there would be a Middle East today. We did not know whether Israel would retaliate as a result of the unprovoked attack. We are grateful that Israel has shown so much restraint so far in this particular case that it has not embroiled itself in the conflict as well.
As we speak in the comfort of the House of Commons in Ottawa at almost eight o'clock in the evening, I must make the point that there are millions of people in Israel and in Iraq who are absolutely, utterly, and completely terrified. Picture for a moment the many Canadians who are sitting tonight in the comfort of their own homes or

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
in safe places somewhere in Canada, but think of the millions of people in Israel, in Iraq, in Jordan, in Saudi Arabia, and in Kuwait who do not know what is happening. The people in Iraq are hearing the bombs. They are hearing anti-aircraft fire being returned. Think of our children. Think of all the children who are listening to what is happening. This unspeakable horror that is taking place will be forever etched on their minds.
On Monday we saw the deadline. On Tuesday we saw the bombing of Baghdad. On Thursday night we saw the bombing of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa. What is happening tonight in the Middle East? What is going to happen tomorrow night? When will this war end?
I think it important that we step back for a moment and ask ourselves why.
Hon. members opposite say there is a good reason why our country and other countries are involved in this brutal, hideous war. They say there is an international principle, that an aggressor must not be rewarded.
Madam Speaker, do you really believe that the thousands upon thousands of people who have already lost their lives as a result of the bombardment really care about any international principle concerning aggression? Do you think the millions of people who are suffering and will suffer really care? Members opposite and others argue that war was necessary in order to stop what Saddam Hussein was doing in Kuwait. He was plundering and raping the country. Civil rights were being denied and people were being brutalized. Yes, they were. We know they were. Cases have been documented.
What could be worse than the constant bombardment? Tune in to CNN and watch the satisfaction when the briefings are given at the Pentagon that there are 1,000 or 2,000 sorties a day. What does it mean? What does a sortie mean? It is not a pleasant walk in some pleasant park under pleasant sunshine. A sortie means a bomber, whether it is an F-14 or an F-17 or an F-18 with hundreds of pounds of explosives that are being dropped. Yes, on military targets or strategic targets. Knock out command and control, knock out the Scud missiles, the mobile launchers. Only 80 per cent are successful. What effect is it having on human lives? What scars are being left on those who will survive this particular war?
All too often over the last number of days during this particular debate and before, people seemed to have almost forgotten the cost of war in human terms and what it all means. They have not asked themselves why Americans, Canadians and British are involved in this particular war. Why are we on the eve of destruction? The implications of what is happening are far-reaching because the Americans say that Saddam Hussein must not be rewarded. The aggressor cannot be rewarded and he must be removed from Kuwait.
I understand why millions of lives were lost in World War I, the war to end all wars. Unfortunately, it did not. Many millions of lives were lost in World War II and Hitler came close to defeating the British.
I had the opportunity during the summer to travel through France and to visit some of the sites of some major battles of World Wars I and II. I walked for hours along the beaches at Dunkirk. I walked for hours along the beaches at Dover and I was reminded of what happened there 45 years before. The principle they were fighting for was democracy and freedom. It was something people could understand. They knew why people were fighting. But try to explain to your children that Canada is at war because there is some international principle which says an aggressor must not be rewarded.
I agree an aggressor should not be rewarded. But is war the answer? Is it the answer to send out 1,000 or 2,000 sorties every day, constant bombardment? Is the answer Scud missiles landing in Israel? Is the answer the fall of King Hussein of Jordan? Is the answer Syria joining forces with the Iraqis? War is the answer Iran joining forces with the Iraqis? War is not the answer, but we are involved in the war. We are there whether we like it or not. Canadian troops are there and we pray to God that it will not be necessary for Canadian troops to be involved in a direct way in hostilities there. We pray to God that the war will end as quickly as possible, but in my view, it was so unnecessary.
In the Second World War those who were alive then, and those like myself who were not but who read about it, knew who the enemy was. We knew; they spoke about the enemy. As I was preparing for my remarks, I was asking myself who is the enemy in this particular war? As I was brought up, I was taught that usually there is an enemy that you shoot at in order to kill and destroy. Are the Iraqi people the enemy in this war? Of course they
January 17, 1991

are not, but Canada is at war with Iraq. The enemy is not the people of Iraq, the innocent men and women. Perhaps the military and the army-the roughly 500,000 troops-are not the enemy. The enemy is Saddam Hussein. He is the person, the one individual who has caused all this. Should we be involved in a war that might take the lives of millions of people, that will scar the psychology, the psyche of millions of others around the world? Should we be at war? I think not, Madam Speaker. We ought not to be involved in this war.
The United States is the main combatant on the part of the allies. We know the reason why the world is at war tonight. It is not to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The reason that the world is at war is to remove Saddam Hussein period, to eliminate, to destroy Saddam Hussein in order that he no longer can be the leader of Iraq. The reason why the world is at war is to eliminate the threat that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi threat. What are the consequences as a result? Who are the casualties? What are the casualties? We know what the devastating economic impact will be. We know that human suffering and human destruction will be immense. What about in the long term once this war is over, whether it is over in the next few days, weeks, months or the next few years? What will the world be like after the shooting stops? Will the entire problem be resolved? Will the world be safe and peaceful afterwards? Will the world be safe from other Saddam Husseins? Will there be others? I think there will be. Once the shooting stops the problems will only begin as a result of the war that we find ourselves embroiled in.
War was not the answer. Economic sanctions were not given the opportunity. Economic sanctions were working. It was not proven to us, it was not proven to the world that economic sanctions were not working. The onus was on those who wanted war to prove that economic sanctions were not working. The fact is that the evidence is overwhelming; whereas diplomacy may not have been working over the last number of weeks, over the last number of months, sanctions were in fact working.
I would like to cite a speech that was given by Senator George Mitchell just last week when the United States was debating in Congress whether or not George Bush should be given the authority to go to war. We all know that the vote was close both in the Senate and in the
Government Orders
House of Representatives. Senator Mitchell said, and I quote:
War carries with it great costs and high risk. An unknown number of casualties and deaths; billions of dollars spent; a greatly disrupted oil supply and oil price increases; a war possibly widened to include Israel, -
We know that he was right.
-Tlirkey or other allies; the possible long-term American occupation of Iraq; increased instability in the Persian Gulf region; long-lasting Arab enmity against the United States; a possible return to isolationism at home.
The grave decision for war is being made prematurely.
These words were spoken before the United States embarked on its campaign, as it referred to it. He went on to document what went on in the United States in the weeks preceding the decision to go to war when Mr. Bush said these sanctions were working. Secretary of State Baker said these sanctions were working. The head of the CIA director William Webster said that sanctions were working. He pointed out that more than 90 per cent of Iraq's imports and 97 per cent of its exports had been stopped. He documented in very clear terms how sanctions were working yet they were not given an opportunity. Instead, the United States decided that war was necessary.
We do not know where this will all end. We do not know what the final result will be. I note that my time is nearly expired. I had much more to say but let me conclude by saying that and I my party support the Canadian troops that are there in the Middle East. We hope and pray that this war will end as quickly as possible and that our troops can come home to their families in a safe fashion. We also hope and pray that Canada will play a major and leading role in developing and working toward a long and lasting peace, as difficult as that will be, after the hostilities stop. We hope that our country will still be in a position to work toward a long and lasting peace in the Middle East, a recognition that there are many people who have differences there, that the Palestinians are entitled to a homeland of their own, and a recognition of their rights, that Israelis have a right as well to be safe in their nation. Answers must be found, and I am convinced that Canada can play that role in the future.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my friend who just finished says that we should withdraw the present motion supporting the UN resolution and then goes on to say: "But we support our troops". What he is saying is that we do not support what is happening in the

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Middle East, that the troops should not be there, but we support them in what he would term an illegal or an unwanted act, one with which he would not agree.
I would point out that his leader said we should support the United Nations up to a certain point, but when they fire a shot then we should pull out. These people on the other side have to make up their minds; they must support the sanctions of the United Nations, of the multinational force of which our troops are a part, because if they do not support that, how can they support the troops in an action that they do not support? It does not make sense.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, there is no sense in what the hon. member said and it is very difficult to make any sense for him. The hon. member has just displayed the pettiness that we have seen day in and day out coming from that side of the House of Commons and, in particular, from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Of course, we support the troops.
Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade): I know that that member many times breaks the rules of this House. He just accused me of motives that I do not have and I did not have when I rose in this House and asked my question. I asked a question, I asked a very clear question; I asked him if he could explain that. He then impugned the motives that I was using to do this and that is against all regulations in this House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It would be appreciated if nobody would impugn motives and we would answer questions and debate this very serious question without getting into unpleasant situations again. The hon. member for York South-Weston.


John V. Nunziata: The hon. member suggests that it is inconsistent to be opposed to Canada participating in the war taking place and to support the troops after war has broken out. We know that in the United States the vote was very close in the U.S. Congress. It was very close, but once the decision was taken, once that country went to
war, the entire Congress fell behind the American troops in the Middle East.
I believe that here as well in the House of Commons we had our differences in principle as to whether or not Canada should participate, whether or not war was the answer or war is the answer, but surely every last member in this House, indeed every last Canadian, should show support for the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces who are putting their lives on the line in the Middle East as we speak here tonight. I do not believe there is anything inconsistent in those positions.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau -La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving us this account of the Middle East issue and demontrating that we are indeed-of course, that goes without saying-supportive of our troops in the present circumstances.
However, to say at the same time that if we do not approve of the sanctions, it means that we do not support our troops, that is absolutely ridiculous.
Considering that almost half of the United States Senate-and they are involved-recommended that the sanctions be exhausted before taking military action, I put this question to the hon. member: Had sanctions been workable up to the last minute, does he believe that the risk of loss of lives would have existed anyway?


John V. Nunziata: With all the certainty I can command, I believe that if sanctions were given a chance, sanctions ultimately would work. Members of the Senate in the United States and of the House of Representatives made the case very clearly. I would like to quote just very briefly from the speech of Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. He said, before hostilities broke out on Tuesday evening, before the United States went to war, and I quote: "Sanctions have not failed and no one can prove they have. They still have a good chance of achieving our objectives in the Gulf. Saddam Hussein is paying a heavy price for his aggression: 95 per cent to 90 per cent of his oil exports have been shut down. Iraq's

economy has been cut nearly in half. Saddam has no foreign exchange to prime his war machine. A trickle of consumer goods may be slipping through, but Saddam cannot run his country or his war machine on that."
The evidence was overwhelming that if given the opportunity, sanctions would have worked. Hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved if the United States showed the restraint that it is asking Israel today to show in order to try to contain the conflict there. If the Americans showed restraint and allowed sanctions to work, hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of lives could have been saved.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, I quote from Hansard January 16, 1991, page 17133:
Nobody pushes the United Nations around, not even the United States. No one nation, especially not the United States, is able to impose marching orders on that institution.
No, this is not an American adventure. It is a United Nations action in collective security, one of the greatest historic developments of our time-
I am quoting the former leader of his party, the former Prime Minister of Canada, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. It is amazing to me that an individual can fly in the face of a former Prime Minister, whom he supported and for whom he has all kinds of respect. It is simply amazing.
Before I finish, I do want the member to respond to that comment. There is a very important distinction between what happened in the United States House of Representatives and what is happening here. Certainly there is disagreement in this House and there is disagreement in the U.S. Congress. No one questions it because this is what this forum is all about. None of us questions it; in all sincerity, none of us.
The difference is simply this. The hon. member mentions that he is behind our troops, despite the differences we have had over this particular issue and the motion before us. He is behind the troops. The difference between that party and the individual senators and congressmen in the United States who had differing opinions is simply this: not only are they behind their troops, but also they are behind their President.
This is something on which I would like a clear distinction. I think they have a responsibility to be behind
Government Orders
the Prime Minister, the minister of defence and the Government of Canada. That is a very clear distinction. They can hide all they wish behind that sentence or that little phrase they like to use that they are behind the troops.
I think, they have to be behind the Canadian people, the Government of Canada and, indeed, our Prime Minister.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, the member is asking the impossible. He is asking me to join the 12 per cent of Canadians who are behind the Prime Minister of Canada. It is ludicrous to suggest we ought to get behind the Prime Minister and thereby show support for our troops.
When I say showing support, I do not mean by some vague resolution that says this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait. That is not showing support.
If the hon. member wanted to show support for the Canadian troops in the Middle East, then why does he not convince his House leader and his Prime Minister to bring forward a resolution that says very specifically, "therefore be it resolved that this House of Commons fully supports the Canadian men and women in the armed services who are currently serving in the Middle East"? We would be more than happy to lend our complete and unanimous endorsation to that particular resolution.
We are not simply using rhetoric when we talk about supporting our troops. The troops should be supported in every way possible, whether it is with military equipment or whatever. What is important in our view is that there be a clear and unequivocal resolution coming from this House indicating support for them. I know he agrees with me, so he should start talking to his House leader to put forward an honest resolution in this House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In resuming debate, I will be recognizing the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk. I would like to make sure that the hon. gentleman is still sharing his time with the member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Robert (Bob) Speller: I, like many others in this House, had prepared myself for days to speak in this Chamber on behalf of the Canadians I was elected to represent, the people of Haldimand-Norfolk, on the reasons why Canada should not resort to war at this time.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
But many things have changed in the last 48 hours. The allied armies have sent thousands of bombs into Iraq. Saddam Hussein has bombed Israel. Israel has shown courage and goodness in its restraint.
Our nation is now actively involved in war against Iraq. Canadians are torn between a war they did not want and a desire, now that this country has gone to war, to support our soldiers and our allies.
The decision has been made to commit Canada force, and we now know it was made long before many of the members in this House were given an opportunity to address and vote on the issue. In fact, it is safe to say that fewer than one-tenth of the members in this House were given any influence whatsoever on Canada's decision to abandon sanctions and go to war.
We in Canada are, of course, proud of our democratic traditions. We know that these democratic traditions must be respected if we are to survive. Yet this government declared war, bit by bit, although more than 90 per cent of the members of this House, and thus Canadians, had been left completely in the dark.
Canadians are alienated from the political process, and their mistrust and cynicism grow unabated. If we continue to disapprove of Saddam Hussein, the dictator, as he is so often called, then we had better remember quickly where the power comes from in our country. It comes from the people; not just the war cabinet, not just the top bureaucrats, but the people.
I spent the last several months talking with people in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk. I have received many calls throughout the last few weeks. One was from Leon and Susan Hudecki, who are totally against troops in the gulf. They asked, "Sanctions were working, so why is war necessary?"
There was another one from Sue Stevenson of Waterford, who said, "Sanctions should be extended. Peacekeeping is okay. We do not want war. We need further negotiations. Keep negotiating, please".
Here is another one from Ron Machelli of Tillsonburg who says: yes to war. He is concerned because Hussein is dose to having nuclear power.
Madam Speaker, as you can see, there are differences of opinion across this country on this issue. Among these
people, there were generally three camps. There were those who felt that Saddam Hussein was a madman impervious to the reason of economic sanctions. He had rolled into the sovereign state of Kuwait. His soldiers had raped, maimed and murdered. We as Canadians had a moral obligation to join with other countries to get him out of there, and the quicker the better.
There were those who said that no circumstances justify Canadian involvement in war. I respect their view and I am saddened to have to tell them that we, the politicians of this world, have failed. We have failed to engage this new world order. The optimism that sprang from the destruction of the Berlin wall has faltered.
There were those, the greatest in number, who said that sanctions are still working. They asked why this government had done an about-face; it now has no support for sanctions and instead wants to support war.
That was a question I could not answer, because the government has yet to provide a reasonable explanation of its contention that sanctions were not good enough and that force could not wait. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary.
It may seem to some as a little too late to express regret and concern over the abandonment of sanctions and the resort to force. But I believe it is important to take a few moments and attempt to give a voice to the struggle Canadians face as to whether or not Canada should be at war.
In September, U.S. President Bush told a joint session of Congress:
These sanctions are working. Iraq is feeling the heat. . .Iraq's
leaders. . .are cut off from the world, unable to sell their oil, and
only a tiny fraction of goods are getting through.
In October, U.S. Secretary of State Baker said that sanctions are fulfilling the role as planned. Just one month later, CIA Director William Webster said:
All sectors of the Iraqi economy are feeling the pinch of
sanctions, and many industries have shut down.
Figures put the loss to Iraqi imports at 90 per cent and the loss to Iraqi exports at 97 per cent. Sanctions have shut them down. The flow of spare parts and military supplies from the Soviet Union and France, Iraq's major suppliers, has stopped. Iraq's foreign exchange reserves
January 17, 1991

have diminished drastically, rendering it virtually impossible to purchase foreign goods in defying these sanctions.
Let the government make no mistake: the Canadian public has major reservations about this war. Canadians want to be heard on this issue, and they want their elected officials to represent them in any decision of our forces in the gulf. This government has an obligation to the people of this country to consult them throughout this matter.
For eight weeks following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, this government refused to recall Parliament. It showed no interest in consulting the opposition on the formulation of an all-party position in this matter. Many people in Haldimand-Norfolk have expressed great concern and loyalty to the United Nations. I therefore think it is important that I try to correct some of the confusion surrounding its role.
I found it somewhat ironic that, despite this government's contention that it had United Nations sanction, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Javier Perez de Cuellar, knew nothing of the attack on January 16. We should remember that this is a U.S.-sanctioned war. The distinction may on surface seem to be academic, but it is not. None of the forces currently engaged in the Middle East are taking their orders from the United Nations Council, but instead from a U.S. general.
Canadians mourn the abandonment of Canada's role as a peacekeeper. Our belief in the supremacy of dialogue and our confidence in the potential for negotiation have earned us not only international respect, which far outweighs our size or our economic power, but also has given us national pride and national identity.
Now Canadians are asking themselves: Who are we? What is our role in the world and what role do we play in this conflict? Has our resort to force compromised our peacekeeping role. May it still be needed?
Many of those with whom I have spoken in my riding are now torn. I feel confident that I speak for most of them when I say that we cannot turn our backs on our troops, no matter how much we regret the order to send them to war. Our soldiers must know that we respect their dedication and loyalty, that we pray for their safety, that we will provide necessary equipment for them to
Government Orders
fulfil their duties, and that their families have our support and our gratitude.
We must commit ourselves here in this Chamber to doing the greatest thing we can for our soldiers, which is to pursue peace, to using our international prestige to find a solution, and to rediscovering national traits we once used well in the name of peace: tolerance, the desire to listen, the ability to communicate and respect for human dignity.
The end to this war may well come from the military, but the solution can come only from diplomacy. Canada must put itself in the front lines in finding the solution.
[Translation}


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, there are numerous references to dialogue and negotiation in my hon. colleague's speech. He feels Canada should have perservered along that line.
I want to remind him, first, that it takes at least two sides to have a dialogue and that, way back then, Saddam Hussein refused to take part in a dialogue.
Second, negotiation also calls for two sides who are willing to negotiate. Now, Saddam Hussein refused to negotiate until the last minute. He even came very close to refusing to see the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
How can he say that Canada should not have got involved in such action, that it should withdraw its support to the UN and keep negotiating, when it has been established that Saddam Hussein did not want to negociate any more?


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, what I said in my speech here tonight was that I felt, and that people on this side of the House felt, not only that negotiations were not carried on enough, but that sanctions were not given enough time to work.
I think I showed, by giving the hon. member figures in my speech tonight that sanctions were working, that Saddam Hussein was cut off, and that, in fact, if we look at the circumstances, Saddam Hussein, more than likely, did not know the resolve of the United Nations prior to making his move into Kuwait.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
If we look at the history of the story, if we read what has gone on in the past, that the Americans themselves failed diplomatically, failed in all ways to inform Saddam Hussein before he went into Kuwait, we see that they would not stand for it.
The fact that the international world community formed together was a wonderful thing. It was good that Canada got involved in the forefront and sent members of the force over there to enforce these sanctions. That is the way to get people to negotiate.
I only regret that this government and these allies did not give sanctions enough time to work.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: The hon. gentleman talks about sanctions. I would just like to ask his opinion on sanctions that were discussed in a Liberal release on the Persian Gulf crisis on December 21.
I know the gentleman must be familiar with it because it is the Liberal policy. It says here: "The Liberal position is that Canada should promote sanctions, rather than the threat of war". It reads on later: "On the one hand, this would involve imposing a threat of new sanctions such as a drastic reduction in Iraq's water supply, controlled by Turkish dams, if Saddam refuses to reconsider his position. Alternatively, a refusal to consider speedy resumption of food aid to Iraq".
I am not familiar with international law, but if the hon. gentleman is promoting sanctions that would limit water and food to an opposing country, I would be shocked. Yet it is clear in this policy. I would like the hon. member to discuss it when he is indeed walking down the main street in Hagersville, talking to his constituents.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, it was his government that chose to go to war. It was his government that said sanctions were not working. It was his government that refused to give this House any proof whatsoever that sanctions were not working.


An hon. member:: It's his obligation to do it.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Whether or not this war is a long war or a short war, people will die. They will die whether or not we get this over quickly or whether or not it is dragged out forever and ever.
This government made the decision for Canada to go to war. What our party wants to do now that that
decision has been made, is to support our men and women over there, and to have this House debate openly and freely the issues involved around Canada's role there.
I would hope that the hon. member will take charge of his caucus and his government and make sure they present to this House a resolution that shows that this House supports our men and women who are in the Persian Gulf now.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, this is a difficult and serious debate. It may well be one of the most disturbing debates in this House since I first became a member. I don't have much time, but I would like to make a few comments.
The government tabled a motion in the House last Tuesday which reads as follows:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
I was here in Ottawa last August when the government made its decision to send Canadian troops, resources, equipment, and Canadian ships. I spoke in our party caucus, and, we supported the government's initiative, an initiative that had been launched by the United Nations to apply economic sanctions in order to convince Saddam Hussein he should free Kuwait.
Our mission then was the same mission we have today. We are still convinced Saddam Hussein should free Kuwait.
The motion before the House today is defective. It is entirely obsolete, because it ignores the fact that there have been changes in the world.
We can hardly say the Liberals were part of the decision to go to war. We were against that decision. We said many times that now was not the time to proceed with military action.
We supported the sanctions. We were convinced that over time those sanctions would have the desired effect, which would be to persuade Saddam Hussein to free Kuwait.
January 17, 1991

We didn't change the ways and means. This was done by forces independent of this caucus, of the group to which I belong, the Liberal Party.
In an amendment to the government motion that we tabled last Tuesday, we said that for the time being, we should not resort to military action. We said that for the time being, economic sanctions and diplomatic efforts should be continued, so that no one could say we had failed in our task to maintain peace in the world.
The decision was made by others. No one can blame us today and say that the Liberals changed their minds. We did not change our minds. The mission remains the same. The mission is to free Kuwait and to convince the aggressor, Saddam Hussein that he should leave Kuwait.
I listened to a number of the speeches made in this House. I listened especially to speeches by ministers to find out whether they contained a message that would have been reassuring with respect to the efforts made by this government internationally to convince the aggressor, Saddam Hussein, to give up his plans to occupy territories that are not his.
On the contrary, for months we saw no constructive action by this government. All of a sudden we were told: "We are going to war. Canada is taking part in a coalition."
And today, we are asked to approve a motion that does not say that we are going to war but that we support the United Nations in its efforts to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi oppression.
I repeat, this motion is defective and poorly drafted, so much so that I fail to understand how the government can possibly want us to believe that this motion, which is in fact obsolete, could be voted on today by this House and that we are actually taking a vote in the House on the decision to go to war and support our troops.
I do not have much time but I will one thing: we support the Canadian troops. We support the mission aimed at liberating Kuwait and, now that the decision has been made, for we have always been consistent on this issue,-we have said that we support the mission to liberate Kuwait,- we support the sanctions. Now that without consultation and without telling us first the government has decided to go to war, I think it is clear
Government Orders
that the mission remains unchanged: to liberate Kuwait, but not to put the world and that important region of the world on a war footing, a terribly dangerous escalating process which might begin in the next few hours and likely compromise world peace for years to come.
I listened closely to the speeches of my colleagues. A moment earlier a question was directed to one of my friends, one of my colleagues, about the sanctions. It is not up to us to show that the sanctions were not working.
We think that the sanctions were working. If we are to believe the American authorities, the sanctions were working before the election. What happened all of a sudden that they no longer work?
The onus of proof rests with the government. We did not get a satisfactory response to our questions about that.
I do not have much time but there is another point I want to raise. The situation has changed over the last 24 hours. The current situation in the Middle East, with the state of war between the coalition and the Iraqis, has changed the minds of a lot of people.
A few days ago, the American Congress voted 47 to 52:47 American senators voted against the participation of American troops in the Middle East war. Yesterday, Madam Speaker, now that war has broken out, 98 American senators supported their country at war. It is a heart-felt sentiment.
I cannot stand here today and say that I do not support the men and women of our armed forces who are there to defend-in my name and under my flag, under the command of my country-the cause espoused by my government, whether I like it or not.
I do not support this government. Everybody knows that, but it made the decision. As a Canadian therefore, I have to support the decision that was made and support the Armed Forces.
The decision we will have to make, the vote we will have to take in a few days, I hope, will be an intelligent vote. I swear to you, Madam Speaker, that we will gladly rise for that vote because all of us here-Muslims, Jews, Christians-pray to the same God for peace. I hope she is listening to us!

January 17, 1991
Government Orders


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend said that this debate is a most difficult one. Indeed it is, definitely. Not only is it difficult, but its complexity is such that we have lost sight of our objective.
During the few minutes he has left, could my hon. friend elaborate on this and put the debate back in perspective by emphasizing the real meaning of the vote we may be called upon to take, defining what is at stake and restating what is exactly Canada's position.
The Canadian position is clear: Although we would have supported the use of four military forces to enforce the sanctions, we are opposed to their participation in direct military action. Now we are faced with a war.
Could my hon. colleague tell the House once more that we just cannot tell our fighting men and women that we cannot support them, for they are just a bunch of terrorists? It is inconceivable that the government should hope to convince the Canadian people of that. It is an absolute aberration. Would my hon. friend care to elaborate on that point?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the hon. member for Saint-Denis, a man who knows how to put issues in their proper perspective, for his question which is quite relevant.
First of all, may I say that there is no shame in seeking peace. I should be delighted, as I am sure the hon. member would be, if our forces could help bring back peace.
Only God knows when a vote will be held within the next few days; I certainly do not. What I know, however, is that the three parliamentary leaders will have to agree on the proper time for this vote, for the motion or order of the House dealing with this issue grants them in this particular instance the right to decide when the vote will be held. I do not know when it will be taken. I really do not know.
What I can say, however, is the vote on this motion. It may be that the significance of the wording may have been lost for, as I said, the motion is now redundant, obsolete. We just could not put the true question before the Canadian people which would read: In view of the
fact that our military forces are already fighting side by side with other armed forces in the Persian Gulf, do you support them, yes or no? That is the question.
I support our military forces. I hope and pray that they will return home as soon as possible before this confrontation escalades into a war of which everybody understands the importance and significance. Should there be a shift in the Arab coalition tomorrow, we would be faced with a very difficult situation. All we are asking, is for Mr. Saddam Hussein to regain his senses and withdraw his forces from Kuwait. We have nothing to gain in bringing him to his knees or in destroying Iraq. We have no territorial ambition or vested interest in that region, but we want to re-establish international order.
Madam Speaker, I suggest it is in Canada's interest to work for peace and, as I said earlier, there is no shame in seeking peace. In fact, that is the very objective of our military forces.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton -Lawrence):: I want to compliment my hon. colleague from Ottawa-Vanier for elucidating government members their consternation regarding how people can feel about the circumstances in which Canada finds itself, in the face of a war that no one wanted and yet a war in which we are participants.
When members of my party, had the choice not that long ago between peace and war we chose peace. Who would choose otherwise? When we had the opportunity to choose between sanctions and war, we chose sanctions. We defended the opportunity that sanctions would afford peace. We defended the opportunities that sanctions would afford level-headedness, rationality and a peaceful mode to a conflict resolution.
We continued to do that, right up until that very last moment, not 48 hours ago. We understood the risks of waiting our time, of biding our time. We took the government to task on the fact that it was beginning to act unilaterally without consulting with this Parliament, without consulting the people of Canada. It acted unilaterally and changed the usual role, the normal role that Canada had played on the world stage as a peacekeeper that the minister identified as one that co-ordinated conflict. We changed from peacekeeping to peacemaking. Overnight, without consultation in Parliament, we
January 17, 1991	COMMONS DEBATES	17377
became policemen of societies throughout the world. In the minister's words, we have become the policemen of the new democratic order.
We found ourselves in a position where we were objecting to a government that had unilaterally decided to involve Canada in an adventure. Such as it was, this last summer, an adventure in the Middle East, an adventure which threatened to destabilize the very precarious stability, the very fragile balance of power that existed prior to August 2. We could find absolutely no reasons other than supporting sanctions, for doing anything other than looking for the vehicle that we were participants in establishing in the United Nations as a focus point in a medium for seeking solutions.
As of the other day the choice is no longer between sanctions and war. It is between war and war. It is not a choice that we would like. It is not a choice that Canadians want. It is not a choice that any rational human being would relish making. It is difficult for all Canadians to be faced with such a choice. Other colleagues before this House have pointed to the difficulties, the attrocities and the sacrifices in humankind, in material, in resources, in lost opportunities, in genius and human talent that go wasted because of this type of conflict resolution.
But we face it, Madam Speaker, and because we face it, all Canadians now have a choice of a long war or a war which is to be completed as expeditiously as possible with minimum damage to our own international reputation, to our domestic reputation, and most importantly to the men and women we have sent into a theatre of war without seeking the consent of Parliament. We are in war and so it is not illogic that those of us who represent the will of the people throughout this land would seek to indicate to each and every one of them that it is not theirs, the responsibility for waging this war without the approval of Canada is not theirs. That responsibility lies with the government opposite.
We, on this side of the House, support our men and women. The objectives they have to achieve are objectives which we can identify despite the government's obfuscation of them. We have entered into a theatre of war without knowing the reasons why. The government
Government Orders
and through its members over the course of this debate has sought to depict the situation as one in which the world order is pitted against the machinations of one evil, diabolical individual. I would buy that. I do not think there is anyone in Canada-perhaps no one in the Western World-who has not been convinced that we are dealing with a type of individual who should not be the leader of Iraq, let alone any other country in the world. We have an obligation to deal with the threats that Saddam Hussein poses not only to the Middle East, but to us on an international basis. We find ourselves being unwilling combatants in a war that no one wants. But, as combatants and as representatives of the public we have the obligation to ask this government for what purposes these combatants sacrifice themselves and about the emotions and the contributions of all Canadians.
Is it simply to remove the dictator from Kuwait? I remind government members opposite that the road to Kuwait taken by the allied forces runs through Baghdad. I remind government members that allied war machinery is raining havoc, death, and destruction on millions of people in Baghdad. I remind government members opposite that those same tools of death and destruction are going to be aimed at our own men and women, just as they have been aimed at victims in the Middle East.
We witnessed yesterday, much to the shock and horror of all people around the world, a senseless attack on Israel, but a Machiavellian one nonetheless. Although I do not know whether as a peace loving Canadian I would be able to resist this kind of provocation, we are asking Israel to ignore the infractions of its national interests, its national security, and the menace of death to its citizens in order to allow the allied forces to secure the kind of peace that we could all participate in.
When we take a look at the objectives for which we are engaged in war, can we stop simply at ousting the dictator from Kuwait? The answer to that has to be a resounding no.
How can we do it most effectively? How can we do it most efficiently? How can we do it so that we produce the most long-lasting result?

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Hon. colleagues, at least on this side of the House, recognize the moment that we entered the theatre of war we were committed to doing a variety of things. One of them was the liberation of Kuwait, not necessarily to replace its feudal government with another feudal government, but perhaps to give another system of government a greater opportunity to exist.
We recognize as well that in order to maintain stability, we have to make some commitments to ensuring that the integrity of Kuwait outlives the withdrawal of the allied forces from the theatre of war as surely as it witnessed their entry.
I have been listening to the debate from the government side as to how this is going to be accomplished or whether in fact this is an objective. I have heard not one indication so far that we will have to destroy the military threat that Iraq poses to all of its neighbours.
We have witnessed it in the past. We have seen it in operation against Iran for eight years. We have seen it recently in operation against Kuwait. We saw if just yesterday in operation against the State of Israel, which is not a belligerent nor a combatant nor a participant in any of the conflict. We saw it just recently used against other ethnic minorities in the State of Iraq, the Kurds and others on the Turkish border.
An objective has to be the destruction of that military machine. Another objective has to be the re-establishment of some stability.
Is it the government's intention to destroy Iraq and then to leave a power vacuum that will be filled willy-nilly by other powers in the area that have demonstrated a predatory bent in the past?
We know already of Syria's history into Lebanon. We know already of Saudi Arabia's movements in the area. We know in that that Saudi Arabia increased its military potential with the purchases of $22 billion worth of arms only last August.
Can anyone on that side of the House reasonably expect that that increase in armament potential is going to re-establish a very fragile balance of power in the Middle East? Can we forget the national security interests of Israel? I think not. All members in this House
have indicated that that has to be crucial to any kind of balance of power.
In addition, what are we going to do once we have destroyed the leadership of Iraq, once we have destroyed the internal domestic political structure? Are we prepared to leave a large peacekeeping contingent in order to restore domestic order? Are we willing or are we being asked by the government to put in place an authority to have an allied army of occupation and administration not only in Iraq, not only in Kuwait, but also in Saudi Arabia?
The government is very short in some of the questions and objectives that it says in which we will participate, but the government has already committed Canada to involvement in the war without declaring war. Surely, as in 1918 when we participated in the First World War, our presence in the conflict would give us an opportunity to sit at the peace table and to work out part of a peace plan that should be long lasting.
What are those objectives? What are those plans? Does not the Canadian public deserve the right now to know for what we are committing enormous political military potential, for which we are committing, as well, domestic national strife? We are pitting Canadian public opinion against Canadian public opinion on the question of war and war in the Middle East.
If we are to be true and serious participants in this activity for collective security, we will have to define what we mean in terms of collective security and longterm peace. As I said at the outset, the question is no longer one simply of sanctions versus war. We are never going to be able to resolve that argument. We have not given ourselves the opportunity to find out whether sanctions will work. We are never going to be able to afford ourselves the opportunity to see whether any other peace mechanisms would have produced the desired result.
Keep in mind, government members as well as opposition members, that we had the same objectives whether through sanctions or through war: the ousting of a dictator, the liberation of an occupied territory, the destruction of a war material, and the re-establishment of a fragile balance of power in the Middle East. The fragility of such a balance of power is to be seen in the kind of threats that a friend of Canada is witnessing on a
January 17, 1991

day-to-day basis. As we speak, we know that the Israelis whose a nation is about the size of Prince Edward Island are facing imminent dangers of missile attack and armed invasion. We are asking them, and we should ask ourselves as well, if they are to make the sacrifice for peace what will be our sacrifice. Well, we are not going to make very many and I hope not, but at least truth should not be one of them.
Canadians can make a contribution in the Middle East. One of my colleagues, an expert in military matters, said that there is a variety of contributions. There are naval contributions, aviation, land troops, support contribution, and the humanitarian side.
Members from my caucus-and I see it has been replicated in the NDP caucus as well-feel that the humanitarian support that Canada can provide would be of long-term value, not only for the people in the area, but for Canada's reputation world-wide.
We have already seen the enormous dislocation and difficulties that the conflict has created. We saw it at the very beginning when over 60,000 refugees fled through Jordan. We are seeing it again. We know, through the bombardments that are taking place on both sides, that we are going to have in access of 750,000 more refugees. Some estimates point the number of refugees at 1.5 million. How will we restore order if we cannot take advantage of the opportunity to provide humanitarian needs at a time of great crisis. That would be in keeping with many of our roles in the UN.
George F. Kennan, a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, dean of American foreign policy and the author of the containment policy, said just shortly after World War II when Europe was witnessing or living through the experience of post World War II economic, political and social destruction: "Against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos, governments would seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit from it politically or otherwise would encounter the opposition of-" and I could add there the United Nations and Canadians everywhere.
To do something less would be to shame the objectives which we say we applaud when we involve ourselves in this conflict. Our government owes it to all Canadians to indicate to what extent we are participating in a long-
Govemment Orders
term peace plan, much as the allied powers in World War II at Quebec, Casablanca and Yalta already began to prepare for peace. We have not been given an indication of that, other than to say that we will establish a military might beyond any contest in the Middle East.
But that is going to be very short lived, and we cannot cast forward surreptitious suggestions about peace. We have already made efforts to sacrifice virtually everything on behalf of peace. For example, I know my colleagues to my left have often alluded to an international peace conference with a set agenda and objectives to ensure a set end of results.
When we got to the point where we were willing to sacrifice national security interests of Israel in order to secure peace and were not able to obtain it, we knew that vehicle was no longer a viable option for us. But we must to have something in place.
Will the government come forward to tell the Canadian people what that plan is? It cannot be that we are simply going to leave our troops in the Middle East. It cannot be that we will give to them the policing authority in a land where co-operation and harmony has been disrupted over the course of the last 50 years by the economic dislocations of rationality that oil brings, both with its wealth and with its jealousies.
In closing, I can only add the ominous words of a letter sent to me by the Canadian Arab Federation just recently: "There is no such thing as a military solution to the Middle East conflict. War would only poison relations between the west and 200 million Arabs and one billion Muslims for decades. An international disaster would result. Indeed the new world order we speak of and hope for would likely be lost".
Our search for peace has to be one that is rooted in long-lasting profound initiatives. Our party on this side of the House is asking the government through this resolution to stop hiding behind obfuscation and to come forward with a peace plan that all of us can vote one.
I know that all Canadians following this debate would agree that no one wants war. Now that our government has put us in a war, we want a plan for eliminating the need for war as quickly as possible. If there is war, I know all members here on our side of the House, all members of the Liberal caucus, would say to our friends and to our sons and daughters in battle right now that we would be

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
the first to volunteer in order to be with them and to bring them back home safely.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins-Cha-pleau.
Madam Speaker, we are here tonight to discuss a moot question and an irrelevant resolution. We are talking about a war that is proceeding as we speak in the House of Commons, and some Members will be speaking until three or four o'clock this morning.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I'm sorry, I meant to catch the attention of the House before the Honourable Member started.
I wonder if we could have the consent of the House to allow the pages to call it a night. I am sure they are tired. They have been working long hours this week and many of them have school to attend.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, we fully agree that these young men and women should go home to bed while we continue working. See you Monday.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is an excellent suggestion. They have given us yeoman service day-after-day; a brilliant insight and enthusiastic support from us.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the generous comments that have been made, and that of course will be ordered. However, I should point out to the House that arrangements had been made, with which they had cheerfully complied, to serve us as long as the debate continues. I think the generous comments that have been made are an indication of the gratitude and the esteem with which this House holds the pages who serve not only the House but our country.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with what has been said, but I want to take this moment to state that there are so many other House of Commons employees who obviously will not be able to go home. Perhaps we can use this occasion to tell them that if we could allow them the same privilege, we undoubtedly would. People such as the Clerk, the stenographers and
others who are helping us should at least be recognized for their help.
I take the liberty of saying that as a former House employee. I want to congratulate them for their dedication.


Mr. Speaker:: As a former House employee, the hon. member probably remembers moments when if the Members had gone home, he could have gone home.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, you might mention the translators.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there is a general mood in the House to thank all those who serve this place and in so doing, serve our country.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, while I have the Parliamentary Secretary in the House, I would like to ask him a question dealing with the business of the House on Monday. It is a very important question, given that we do not have at this time an idea of what the House is going to be dealing with on Monday and since we will probably be sitting late tonight and tomorrow.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary has had a chance to talk to his House Leader and could apprise the House of what order of business this House will be taking up on Monday and, if possible, on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week.


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out that this may be unusual but the parliamentary secretary is rising to answer.


Albert Glen Cooper: I would indicate to the hon. member that at this point it would appear as though we will be calling Bill C-88, Bill C-91 and Bill C-93, three bills which are presently on the Order Paper.
Of course, we are facing a unique situation and circumstances may change, so I obviously have to put that caveat forward. But, at this point it is certainly our intention to call those three bills. We will talk about order with the other members of the House and provide all the co-operation that we can.


John V. Nunziata: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, I assume from the discussion between the House leaders that it is accepted that the debate will be allowed to collapse; that, at some future point to be determined by the three House leaders, a vote will be taken; and that

there will be no amendment to the order of the House that we are presently operating under.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for all House leaders so one would want to reserve all of one's options, but we are co-operating. We have had an excellent spirit in the House of Commons this evening, and I am sure that will continue.


Steve Butland: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that all those interventions did not detract from my time.


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that I have kept track of all those interventions. They will not detract from your time.


Steve Butland: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. As I was saying this debate is about war. We are talking until three or four o'clock in the morning because the government did not call us back at the appropriate time. The Congress of the United States saw fit to get the job done and passed a resolution. Spoke to a resolution that was appropriate. We are not doing that. We were brought back nearly on the eve of war to discuss a resolution that was already nearly outdated. I am not an historian nor have I ever been in the Middle East, so I think that is a disadvantage for those of us who have not experienced the actual setting or the theatre of war. Some of my constituents have told me that just, maybe, if George Bush and the Prime Minister of Canada and more politicians were in the theatre of war, there would be less war declared.
The Prime Minister has quoted Lester B. Pearson on several occasions. I suggest that it has been selective quoting and I would also like to quote that the right hon. Prime Minister. In 1957, when he received the Nobel Peace Prize he said: "We prepare for war like precocious giants but for peace like retarded pygmies". I think that quote more aptly raps up what the Prime Minister meant at that time and what our party also stands for we are really treading on a tight rope between utopia and cremation. Just six months ago, the Berlin Wall was brought down, the cold war was over, the satellite countries of the U.S.S.R. were seeking independence, there was detente between the United States and the U.S.S.R. Now we have problems in Lithuania and the other satellite countries. We have this conflagration in the Middle East. The turn of events has been so
Government Orders
dramatic, going from the very positive to the very negative. Indeed, we are on a tight rope and we could go either way.
We have been consistent in saying that this war is unnecessary and unjust. It is a war about power, about money and about oil. A journalist, and I think a wise journalist, said that if Kuwait were full of coconut palms or date palms, certainly we would not be trying to drive Saddam Hussein out of that country. We invaded Kuwait. We would like to get him.
The young people and the senior citizens of this country, the young people who have not experienced war, who have not been sullied by war, in one united voice say no, war is not the solution. At the opposite end of the spectrum, visiting the legion in my community, the veterans who have experienced war said war is no solution. It will not solve anything. And just this evening, it was very timely, dated January 15, One Voice, the Seniors Network spoke against this war. "We want to see Canada playing a more active and independent peacekeeping role in its support of the United Nations. We can enforce sanctions and take part in diplomatic negotiations but we must not be aggressors in this conflict", say the seniors, the veterans who have experienced war and the young people of this country. I had occasion to receive some letters from students in a school in my community and, to a person, to an individual, they say war will not solve anything.
If we can cure so many of the diseases, surely we can resolve our differences. One student said if he could go to Iraq, he is sure if he spoke to Saddam Hussein, he could convince him that this war is wrong. It is ironic that just several years ago, the United States was propping up Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It was giving him arms. He was a hero at that time. Now, all of a sudden he is a diabolical murderer. He is a jackal. He is a barbarian. Has he changed: No, he has not changed. He is the same individual. He was a barbarian then and he is a barbarian now.
Everyone says in their speeches that Saddam Hussein is evil incarnate! Yes, of course, he is an evil individual, but we are wreaking havoc upon millions of people. Have we declared war as well on the Iraqi children, the Arab countries of this world, the Israelis? That has been the domino effect, the spillover. The war, as we have said,

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
will not solve the problem. It will merely be a conflagration of all sorts of nations. There is no solution in war.
I read an article by Richard Gwynne and I think we have given it short shrift. Saddam Hussein wanted a war. We are going to create a martyr. If he is martyred, what will be the end result of that? It will not solve any of our problems. It will create myriad more problems that probably will be unsolvable. While we are unable to solve those problems, how many hundreds of thousands of people will be killed?
Turning to the concept of sanctions, do they work or do they not work? Would they work or would they not work? We get conflicting stories as to whether they were or were not. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said there were undetected products getting through and that is a paradox if I ever heard one. If they are undetected, how do they know they were getting through? Some say sanctions are effective and some say they are not.
This time, we cannot wait. Saddam Hussein will take the food from the children and the women and give it to his soldiers. We are saying that is not acceptable to us. Our alternative is a bomb. Send a thousand sorties a day and decimate the country.
I am sure if the young children in this country had the choice between being hungry and facing the devastation of these bombings, the choice would be obvious. Sanctions should have been given more and more and more time to work. Saddam Hussein wanted this war and we gave it to him. We played into his hands and the solution will not be there. This country, as long as this leader was present, would be a pariah state and other countries would not deal with him.
As I speak Jordan is perhaps to become involved. We knew Hussein would attack Israel, he said so. The Israelis expected it, so it is no surprise, but that does not make it good. This could be genocide. This could wipe out an entire nation.
The cost will be $2 billion a day. It could cost $86 billion. You say: "well money is insignificant, it is irrelevant," but surely in this day and age, with people starving, dying of malnutrition, that money is important. The money could be put to a much better use than this war.
The question is: why are we at war? Can we answer that question? That question that will have to be answered later on when the war is over. Why did we go? To get the aggressor out of Kuwait? To protect our life-style? The President of the United States said to protect our way of life, to protect jobs. That is farfetched. It did not work.
Finally we said we had to get rid of the aggressor. Yes, we must get rid of the aggressor, but is this the way? It is the least desired of ways or alternatives that we should have followed. But now we are into it, and once we have it started, how will we be able to get out of it? Who will be there to pick up the pieces when this is all over?
As for negotiations, negotiations took place, we think. At just about the last negotiation James Baker said: "We are going to try a new spin on an old approach. The carrot is that if they pull out of Kuwait we will not use the big stick". That is negotiating, to use the big stick. Indeed, we are using the big stick. There is bomb after bomb after bomb after bomb.
Winston Churchill, who got much of his fame while being involved in conflict, said: "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war". We accept that and we are against this war. We are consistently speaking out against it. We rally around our troops, and our motives are constantly questioned regarding whether or not we support the troops. That is almost dishonourable. It is despicable to even to suggest that we do not. These people would rather see us rally around the guns.
I will close by asking whether it is the right thing to do, if you are bearing arms and attempting to be a part of an aggression. I cannot help but think of the medics and the padres during wartime. Who could be considered braver than these individuals who went into the front, for the most part totally weaponless?
Please let us not get into saying we do not support our troops. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are against this war. We are against aggression. We believe, unfortunately, that it is now out of hand and that there is no turning back. In view of the way it is escalating, what will it be tomorrow and the next day and two weeks from now? Let us hope it ends as soon as possible.
January 17, 1991


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the conviction with which the hon. member spoke. I have just a few comments and possibly a question.
No one questions the distaste for war; none of us does that. It is certainly an option that no one would prefer. I think one of the issues that was brought forward by the member is somewhat confusing in the minds of the Canadian people; something I guess he did not bring out. It is simply the fact that Saddam Hussein has inflicted severe punishment upon his own people, for hundreds of thousands of his own people have died over the years. In fact, thousands of his own people have died this year. Hundreds of thousands reportedly have died in the country of Kuwait, which he has taken over, and continue to die at this very moment.
The unanswered question of this whole equation is: How many of those people would have continued to die at his hands if the United Nations had not acted as decisively as it has and collectively on behalf of the world to rid the country of Iraq of this individual? Peace at what price? This is really the question I am asking the hon. member.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sincerity of the question.
My answer is that violence indeed begets violence. Yes, I suggested that Hussein is a barbarian, a jackal and all those terms that people have defined him as being. Anybody who would turn upon his own people and use poison gases and all these deadly weapons upon his own kind is all those things. I have also read the horrors in Kuwait, unspeakable horrors, things that when you read them you say are just unbelievable and repulsive.
The government's answer appears to be: "Well, our solution is to go in there and decimate. And rather than allowing maybe 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 to die abominable deaths, torturous deaths, let us do it quickly. Let us get in there. Let us bomb. Let us have a blitzkrieg. Let us see how many and how fast we can get in there to do the job." I understand from the very graphic pictures on television that these weapons are so technical they can actually pinpoint and hit a bunker. These are the kinds of weapons we are using.
Government Orders
The answer cannot be to wipe out a nation although that is possible. We have heard of 150,000, we have heard of 350,000 people killed. I do not know. Nothing has been verified. One wonders what will happen. In a small incident like Panama it was suggested that very few people were killed. It was later evidenced, however, that hundreds were killed. Hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps a million people, if the conflagration continues, will die. That is not the solution.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Portneuf, very briefly please.


Marc Ferland: Certainly, Mr. Speaker,
I shall be brief. I have a question for my hon. colleague. He sides with those who claim that we should have continued to negotiate with Mr. Hussein, a man who had just ended an eight-year war with his neighbour. We had assumed, he and I together with most world leaders, that the war was over in the Middle East and that there would be peace. Hardly a few months later, this same Mr. Hussein invaded a small country. The collective realization of world leaders of countries that are UN members was that Mr. Hussein had not abandoned his military ambitions, but that he wanted an extension of the war in the Middle East in an attempt to take over a number of countries. He certainly did not prove world leaders wrong yesterday when he attacked Israel, a country which so far had not been directly involved in this war against Iraq. I wish the hon. member could explain to me how much further the United Nations could negotiate with this man, when admittedly every possible effort had been made. In other words, to use the hon. member's own words, at one point should one decide to use the big stick to make someone understand that enough is enough?


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and I also accept the fact that it is a difficult question. It is like sanctions. How long do you negotiate, how long do you allow sanctions to work? I do not know. I do not have the answer. I do know, however, that this solution is wrong. It is not a solution to have a travesty upon the world. It will reverberate across the world next month, next year, next decade, and perhaps next century. We may never recover from this.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
To answer as to what time, I have no concept. Sanctions may have taken a year and a half. They say that it is too expensive. It is too slow. Compare that cost with the $86 billion to $100 billion cost and the million lives or whatever. I do not think there is any comparison.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to take part in debate on this very serious issue we have before us. I think one of the things that should be made very clear at the onset is that I firmly believe there is no one in this House, no one, who supports war. We made it very clear that we all oppose war, but the way in which we try to express ourselves in that opposition differs.
The main thing that we are discussing is the motion we have before us. When I read it, I was a little confused.
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
I support that. But what I do not support is the fact that the United Nations, as a peacekeeper, as a body of nations that supports peace, has decided to go to war in its Resolution 678.
If my understanding is correct, under section 42 of the United Nations charter, there must be evidence and there must be proof that all other methods have been exhausted prior to going to and calling for war.
I am not convinced, and I have not been convinced in this House by the members on the other side-that all options have been exhausted. I do not think that sanctions were given enough time to work. I know it has been said, many times: "How long? When do you call a stop to this? When is enough enough?" I do not think that losing one's life is worth all the oil and all the money that is going to be spent in this war.
On the question of sanctions, I would like to quote the rt. hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs on January 16, 1991 on page 17112 of Hansard. In response to a question put to him by our leader, He said:
What I am telling here is that we have the most airtight system of sanctions the world has known and yet even with the most effective network of sanctions we have known, there are strategic imports getting into Iraq.
It seems to me that if we have the most airtight form of sanctions in the world, we have a bushel basket that does not hold water. That is not, in my opinion, a sanction that is functioning.
So what does it mean? It means that we do not have the most airtight sanctions in the world, in my opinion. I find this statement rather silly, quite frankly.
If there were chemicals and machinery coming through the back door or coming into the country somehow, we should have stepped up our patrols, we should have stepped up our sanctions.
There is no evidence I have heard in this House that tells me sanctions did work. I think we jumped the gun so to speak. I think we acted too quickly. I think if we, as parliamentarians, and it has already been said, but it is worth repeating, if we were made to enter the field of battle we would not be so quick to say: "let's go to war". We say that Saddam Hussein is a maniac, he is not too stable, we do not know what he is going to do next, that he is willing to kill his own people to achieve his goal.
When we drop those bombs on Iraq, we are killing civilians. We are not killing the military. I have a letter from the Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. They were the Nobel Peace Prize winners in 1985. In the fifth paragraph of this letter it says: "The vast majority of casualties and deaths would be suffered by the civilian population. In wars since 1980, 84 per cent of all war dead have been civilians. Forty-five per cent of the population of Iraq and Kuwait are children under the age of 15. Medical facilities there are inadequate even for peace time. But they would be paralysed by war".
I have numerous letters from students in my riding who have written to me saying that this war is stupid. "We do not want war; we want peace. There has to be another way. When you fight with somebody else, that is violence and violence does not create anything but more violence." These are 10, 11, 12 year old kids telling us this. And here we have the Nobel Peace Prize winners
January 17, 1991

Government Orders
saying we value the lives of our Canadian men and women serving in the Persian Gulf to enforce United Nations sanctions on Iraq. We join with their families in praying for a resolution, through the United Nations without war. That is the same thing as the kids are saying.
It does not take a genius to figure out that this war is wrong. It was wrong from the beginning. We did not support it and we do not support it now.
I have a communique from the staff of the Enterprise, a local newspaper in my riding in Iroquais Falls and it says: "Dear Cid, give peace a chance. Please act on our behalf here in Iroquais Falls to do whatever you can to avert a war in the gulf area that could mean the loss of many lives and a world-wide tragedy."
Nobody wanted this war. It is a war that is based on greed not need. It is based on the need for money. Why does Saddam Hussein need Kuwait? He needs it because he is broke. He just came out of a an eight-year war with Iran. He needed the money and this is what this is all about. He wants the oil. He wants the money.
"What is the price of peace", we were asked a little earlier. What is the price of a life? Is a life worth all this? Would losing one life-what if it was yours-be worth it? I do not think so.
There are many things that can be said here this evening. There are many things that have already been said. Our troops are in the gulf. My position and my Party's position is very clear. Our troops are there. There is no question about that. What are they going to do there? Are they going to become part of the aggressive forces? In my opinion they should be used in the role that was designed through the United Nations, that is to pursue the role as peacekeepers. We should be assisting with medical needs, humanitarian needs. We should be offering escorts to the hospital ships. Our CF-18s should be offering protection for those hospital ships. They have a role to play, but that role should not be an aggressive role. It is to be a humanitarian role for the protection and the continuation and pursuit of peace. Once we become aggressors, we are on the same level as Saddam Hussein. We are not above him; we are below him, because we have now become the aggressors.
In the pursuit of peace, our troops do have a role to play. I do not suggest for a moment that they should withdraw and come home and forget all about it. I think they should be there. I think they should be serving the needs of the civilians, of the refugees and not become the aggressors. On that note, I will end my comments.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau on a remarkable speech and I sincerely believe him when he says that each and every member of this House wants for peace.
On Remembrance Day less than two years ago, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I were in Normandy where we visited the huge cemeteries covered with thousands upon thousands of crosses and tombstones with inscriptions listing the ages of the people buried there: 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22. As we left these cemeteries, we could not help but appreciate the beautiful landscape and the happy people and reflect that such was the price these young heroes had to pay to secure this peace.
In the various villages where memorials were being erected to honour Canadian war dead, we spoke to young people, young parents, who said: "We are doing this today because we want for our children to remember those who years ago paid this peace with their lives." Canada remembers. For nearly 45 years-I am sure my hon. friend will agree-it has expended a lot of effort working for the cause of peace.
Yet, there comes a time, once war has been declared, when it is necessary to stand up and be counted. As a union leader, he certainly realizes that people can negotiate for a year or two. Then out of frustration, the parties will start hurling verbal abuse at each other which may turn very quickly into physical confrontations. Society, however, has developed laws and rules of behaviour: The parties may go to court and ask for a ruling.
On the other hand, when the leader of a country decides not to resort to diplomacy and negotiations and even the occasional slap on the wrist, but rather to chemical weapons, tanks and aircrafts to destroy entire areas, how do we stop him? I should like the hon. member to explain to me tonight how, at the international level a judge could enforce international law? Here it is always possible to call the police and say: "Listen, you

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
have to enforce the law". It is possible to put people away in jail, but it is not possible to put a whole country behind bars. Therefore I would like him to explain to me how in the future, we could find a way out of these dead end situations; is not by waging war.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: First I want to thank my colleague for his question, a very serious and sincere question, I believe.
It is true that we spent some time in Normandy about two years ago, and it is true as well that as I walked around the tombstones I was heartbroken to realize that all these young people had died because of the war. This is why today I speak so strongly in favour of successful peace negotiations. I also believe that it is not good enough to say that a time comes when war is the only option. In this instance the negotiating process was not carried through to the end, all avenues were not explored.
As to the sanctions, I feel that they were not given sufficient time to give results. I should like to quote from a statement I have here, but unfortunately I have only the English version.

Retired U.S. Admiral, William J. Crow, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated in testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee:
If in fact the sanctions will work in 12 to 18 months, instead of 6
months, the trade-off of avoiding war with its attendant sacrifices
and uncertainties would in my view be worth it.

I quite agree with that statement. I do not think and I was never convinced that enough time was given for the sanctions to take effect.
Specifically concerning the question of my friend, I am tempted to quote a letter, also in English.

We ask that all governments work to make the sanctions even more effective and that every effort be made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to negotiate the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. We
are convinced that this is the turning point in world history when we can choose to act as an international community to develop a world order that does not rely on war to settle conflicts.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker. I participate in this debate tonight with a definite sense of futility in view of the unfolding events in the Arabian Gulf beyond the control of this House and even well beyond the control of Canada. The debate has become futile in the sense that it does not lead to any meaningful or effective decision by this Parliament, since war is already under way and Canada is there. Many members of this House, including myself, regret this very deeply and would like to have had the opportunity before war started to make some of the arguments that are now moot.
In the present circumstances, I rather regret the extent to which this debate has gone and the fact that it continues to be partisan. I do not believe that this is an appropriate time nor an appropriate issue for the scoring of what may be regarded by our people as somewhat petty political points since Canada is now involved in a war and we are all first and foremost Canadians. I believe that we in this House enjoy substantial agreement on many points. I want to emphasize these points of agreement before I explain, for the benefit of the people of Canada why I believe this matter could and should have been conducted differently.
The resolution before the House would affirm the support of this House for the "United Nations in ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait". The objective of the UN in this matter is something on which I believe we all are in agreement, that is the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the restoration of the legitimate Government of Kuwait. Where we have differed in this House is on the question of the appropriate means for the world community to pursue in order to achieve this objective. We on this side believe that economic sanctions should have been given adequate time to effect this objective in parallel with ongoing diplomatic efforts. The government believed that the time for war had arrived. It and the Prime Minister bear a heavy responsibility for the consequences of this decision.
January 17, 1991

While I deplore the fact that we are at war, I support whole-heartedly the objectives which our forces are pursuing. In that sense, I now find myself in support of the resolution before the House.
The holiday season this year was made gloomier by anxiety and haunted by fear. The world was at a crossroads, but we could tell that the situation was bound to worsen. For sure, the over-all Canadian agenda was not rosy. I was particularly struck by the televised messages from our troops to their families and friends here in Canada. The Canadian soldiers on foreign soil or cruising over distant waters were not posted abroad as peacekeepers, but indeed they were very close to getting involved in deadly combat.
[English)
How could so much have gone wrong so fast? How could it be that we were contemplating the imminent engagement of Canadian forces in battle, not in Europe but in a far-off desert? I suppose all of us wonder why we are really there. Is this really about oil? Is it really a case of the United States somehow co-opting the world community to assist it in its first post-cold war effort to assert its influence in a new and threatening way? If there were no oil in Kuwait, would we even care about the subjugation of this small nation by the Iraqis? Would we have objected if the Iraqis had succeeded in defeating Khomeini and had perhaps occupied the Iranian oil fields?
These questions are to me very unsettling and very disturbing as I contemplate the situation that confronts the world in the gulf. But they do little to help address the issues that have confronted Canada as a member of the world community and that may perplex the world for years to come. There remains little room for debate now that the President of the United States has taken and acted upon the decision to attack Iraq. That decision was made in Washington alone, and this is not the way the world should work in 1991.
I speak in this House of Commons to appeal to our government not to abandon the pursuit of peace even in the face of war. Despite the commitment our nation has made to engage in this action, we must not fail to search for avenues of peace to stop the destruction as soon as
Government Orders
possible. Even in war, let us counsel restraint in the world community.
There should be no dispute about why we are in this situation. The massive, unprovoked and brutal assault launched on August 2 by Iraq against the nation of Kuwait and the subsequent purported annexation of Kuwait as a province of Iraq cannot be tolerated by any civilized nation. Iraq openly and defiantly violated international law and ignored the charter of the United Nations. The world community reacted with remarkable speed and consensus. Canada was right to support the UN resolutions condemning Iraq and demanding its withdrawal from Kuwait, as well as imposing economic sanctions.
There have been some who have equivocated, either because they claim to see some legitimacy in Iraq's alleged grievances, or by citing a double standard lurking in the world reaction to past wrongs of a similar nature. I do not agree with these objections.

The matter of the Iraqi's grievance concerning the artificial boundaries imposed by Britain, their claim to part of Kuwait's territory or their recriminations about the Kuwaitian leaders are nothing more than a smokescreen to throw everybody off balance. Frontiers may well have been cavalierly delineated, but they were accepted by the states of the region and in fact became legitimate. No other state in that region went to war over a boundary issue. Besides, Saddam Hussein was as happy as could be to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Kuwaitian leaders when he sought billions of dollars for his war with Iran.

It is true that there is a strong odour of hypocrisy in the air as the world community unites to condemn Iraq. So many times the world community has stood by and failed to condemn, let alone take meaningful action against, aggressors. Even now the Soviet Union seeks to intimidate the people of Lithuania through brutal means while the world does little more than gush empty rhetoric.
This is an argument that should be turned inside out. If a double standard has been practised, it surely means that the world community needs more experience in collective action. I suppose that if clean hands and a single standard were necessary prerequisites for world community action, there could never be such action at all.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Frankly I am less troubled by the supposed hypocrisy of the United States than I am by the logical conclusion of the argument upon which it is based, namely that the world community cannot act in accordance with the United Nations charter pursuant to resolutions of the Security Council, if the force required to implement these resolutions is primarily provided by the United States. To conclude thus is to ensure that the United Nations will become totally irrelevant and, further, that the United States will act unilaterally in future, when it believes its interests are threatened.
Then there is the cynical belief, to which I alluded previously, that all of this is motivated only by oil. Of course, it is indisputable that had this aggression occurred in some resource-poor region not so strategically located, the response would have been much different. I suppose this is part of the harsh reality of international politics, but it is surely not an argument against international action.
Of course we should not sacrifice human life for oil, but I fail to understand why the powerful economic reasons for ensuring access to important oil reserves should be the basis for undermining the legitimacy of international co-operation against aggression. Oil, whether we like it or not, is vital to the world economy. While this is especially true of the industrialized economies, it is also true that oil is vital to the struggling developing economies. The fact that oil is at stake in this crisis makes its outcome crucially important to the world economy, but it cannot be said that this fact should somehow impede the moral legitimacy of world action against Saddam Hussein.
It is almost too much to contemplate the potential disaster for the world economy and the human suffering that would ensue if Saddam were able to interrupt the supply of oil from the gulf region. I am convinced that none of the hand-wringing and equivocation I have heard is sufficient argument against an international effort, based upon economic sanctions, to turn back Saddam Hussein.
While the cold war period was one of unrelenting tension, it must be said that it was a period free from major international conflict. Regional conflicts were not permitted to get out of hand because of the threat of
escalation to a superpower confrontation and all that such confrontation could mean.
In the post-cold war world, peace will no longer be built on mutual deterrents, and the balance of power will be replaced by the preponderance of power. If the United States and the Soviet Union no longer see their interests as being in contradiction, or if the Soviet Union is in fact in the process of decline as a superpower, then some new and very important questions must be asked. Examples are: What counterweight or other external limitation will there be to U.S. power? What protection does the world have against violations of international law if there are no international policemen? What mechanisms can exist at a multilateral level to ensure that international law is applied even-handedly in situations where force is required?
In the absence of mutual deterrents of superpowers to impose restraint on international aggression, it seems to me that the emerging post-cold war order can follow one of two patterns. Either the international community evolves an effective method of responding to breaches of international law, or there will develop an ad hoc unilateral response to situations deemed by one or another superpower or indeed lesser power to be vital to its interests, probably with little or no consultation with international organizations.
The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq provided the international community with its first clear post-cold war test. It is a clear test, because there is no justification in international law for Iraq's action against Kuwait. After August 2, there were not many choices available to the world community. I could think of three.
The invasion could have been ignored or treated as an Arab problem in need of an Arab solution. This overlooks the fact that no Arab state possessed the military strength to enforce an Arab solution against Saddam Hussein.
Second, the international response could have been to move into the gulf to prevent further aggression but, perhaps after a period of sanctions, to accept reluctantly his annexation of Kuwait as one of those unfortunate things that happen in the world. This option makes the statement that observance of international law is strictly
January 17, 1991

Government Orders
voluntary and acknowledges the inability of the international community to enforce observance of norms, which are surely essential to long-term peace and security.
The final choice, one would have hoped, was to apply the provisions of chapter VII of the United Nations charter, which in itself includes the use of force "as requested by the Security Council of the United Nations". Unfortunately, in this first test of the post-cold war period, the Security Council was not used to bring the pressure of the world community to bear on Saddam Hussein through genuine collective action. Rather, it was used to rubber stamp unilateral superpower intervention in a manner that seemed to meet none of the tests of prudence and sobriety that ought to accompany the decision to destroy the lives and property of hundreds of thousands of people.
I want to take pains to ensure that my remarks are not misinterpreted. I wish in no way to appear to sanction, accept or condone the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. We must not forget the fear and loss suffered by many innocent individuals, including Canadians, who were held hostage by the Iraqis in strategic locations, in complete violation of international law and all norms of human rights. The hostage taking was made even more outrageous by the introduction on August 25 of the death penalty for Kuwaitis found to be harbouring foreign nationals.
In addition to the plight of the hostages, the occupation of Kuwait by the Iraqi forces will doubtless be remembered as one of the most brutal and vicious events of modern history. The 82-page report issued by Amnesty International verifies this completely. If the territorial imperialism of Iraq were not enough, the report of Amnesty International, which other members have referred to, would compel me to the conclusion that international action against Iraq was necessary.
But this is not the essential question. The question rather is: What action is appropriate? By whom should it be taken? The further question we should be asking is: What should Canada's role have been?
I believe that the taking of offensive action by the international force in the gulf against Iraq was the wrong action at the wrong time by the wrong force.

Although force is never rejected outright and might eventually become necessary, it would be a tragic mistake to resort to that option now. We did not give the sanctions enough time for them to be effective.

It does need to be said that the decision to abandon economic sanctions in favour of offensive action will result in unknown but quite possibly horrific consequences. Not only is the conflict certain to result in massive numbers of dead and widespread destruction, but the outcome can never be certain. For that matter, if the alliance of forces does prevail, what then? There is the potential that Saddam will achieve martyrdom, that his defeat will further inflame the Arab dislike for the west and will undermine the governments of Arab states that have supported the alliance and been friendly to the west.
There is the potential need to send occupation forces into Iraq after the war. There is the possibility that neighbouring states will attempt to take advantage of Iraq's defeat by seeking to take Iraqi territory. Perhaps Iran from the east, Syria from the west, and possibly Turkey from the north. There is further the possibility that the spread of the war to Israel will split the alliance against Iraq and possibly bring other Arab nations into the conflict.
But by no means the least importance, there is the risk of a serious ecological catastrophe.
Finally, what should Canada's role be in this terrible situation? Canada has built itself a marvellous reputation in international affairs. Canada's influence has greatly exceeded its might for half this century. With that history in mind, it is all the more embarrassing that in this crisis our government could find nothing innovative or original to contribute until the Prime Minister sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations last week.
I know, that my time is nearly over. I would like to conclude by saying that I believe, the failure to follow the steps outlined in the charter of the United Nations, chapter VII, establishes a very worrisome precedent.
The end of the cold war does not mean the end of the need for collective security based upon international co-operation. However, just as Neville Chamberlain gave appeasement a bad name and thereby influenced

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
countless foreign policy decisions since, this precipitous action in the Gulf may give collective or co-operative security a bad name as well.
We have all watched our television screens during the last days and witnessed the horrors of war. It struck me how capricious life is. Why is it that I was born in Canada and can witness these horrible events safe in the knowledge that the bombs will not fall on me while someone just like me is hiding in a shelter, his family clutched to him in another country wondering why fate has dealt him this card?
Until the leaders of this world find a means of ending the madness of war, we must not rest. We must never tire for working for peace among all peoples.
May God protect our men and women serving for us in the Gulf. May God protect the people, both civilian and military, from all countries who face such grave danger at this time, and may God forgive us all.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the hon. member, It was for the most part, a very thoughtful argument through the course of debate. But there are a couple of points that I wanted to make to which the member could possibly respond.
I think I will begin by quoting our former Prime Minister and leader the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, when on Wednesday, January 16, 1991, he pointed out so clearly:
No, this is not an American Adventure. It is a United Nations
action in collective security, one of the greatest historic
developments of our time,
He went on to say: "certainly in my lifetime".
I mention that only in the sense that I think we are disillusioning the Canadian people when we think that the UN Security Council members rubberstamp the views of any member. Is he telling us, for example, that the U.S.S.R., France, Great Britain and China have rubber stamped the actions of the United Nations?
Further, I think that he has to look beyond articles 41 and 42 of chapter VII and take a very strong look at chapter VII. If he does, I think he would again understand the reasoning so behind this and that the UN was
clearly living within its original charter and certainly within chapter VII. I think, again, that he has to look beyond sections 41 and 42 exclusively.


John Paul Manley: I appreciate the question, Mr. Speaker, because it does give me an opportunity to explain that point which I unfortunately had to omit for lack of time.
I believe that the United Nations was not asked to fulfil its mandate under chapter VII. In lieu thereof, it was asked to write a blank cheque to the United States to launch offensive military action against Iraq. I regret that Canada went along for the ride without even so much as questioning the timing as far as we know.
Chapter VII, as the hon. member knows, of the UN Charter provides a clear framework for international collective action in the face of a renegade state. Chapter VII includes the establishment of a military staff committee and requires, in article 42, a determination by the Security Council whether economic sanctions "have proved to be inadequate".
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, whom I think is veiy familiar with the problems of former leaders standing up and contradicting current leaders, as Mr. Diefenbaker often liked to do, perhaps rhetorically asked the opposition in this Parliament to prove that sanctions were working. What a ridiculous proposition for him to make.
First, this is a matter which the Security Council must decide. It never applied its collective judgment to the issue of whether economic sanctions were working. That procedure was totally short-circuited.
Second, surely the burden of proof must be on those who say the economic sanctions are inadequate. Is this not the argument that the Prime Minister of Canada has been so proud of making in the context of the G-7 nations to Margaret Thatcher? When she argued that sanctions were not going to work against South Africa our Prime Minister said: "Yes, sanctions are the way to go". Yet he seems to be willing to accept on very little evidence, as far as we can see, that sanctions were not working.
My concern is not that this is a question of approving the United Nations engagement in the battle in the Persian Gulf: Rather it is a matter of saying Canada should have stood back and said that the procedures in chapter VII are vitally important. They have only worked
January 17, 1991

once in the history of the United Nations and that was because the Soviet Union chose to absent itself on Korea. Now we have an historic opportunity to see whether genuine, collective and co-operative action can work to enforce peace and security throughout the world. Why not use those procedures? Why short-circuit them and turn that right over to a superpower to make the sole determination of whether it is time to take military action.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this second opportunity to respond.
Just one point that I want to emphasize clearly is the fact that, again under artcile VII, there is no sequence of events, or there are no specific steps that have to be followed with regard to sanctions. There is no pronouncement that has to be made with regard to whether or not sanctions are effective.
If we go beyond the very narrow interpretation of Articles 41 and 42, and look at chapter VII, with the clearness and the intensity of chapter VII, I believe the member would find that we have clearly operated and performed as required under chapter VII.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this is merely a matter for legal interpretation. For what it is worth-and I am not an international lawyer-I read the provisions of article 42, which say: "should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in article 41, namely the sanctions, would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, then it may take such action", and so on. It seems to me that in the absence of such a determination being made, the following provisions of article 42 should not have been taken. That is the legal argument.
I think the more important argument is this: As we move on into the post cold-war era, as I tried to say in my original speech, we really have two choices in terms of how international peace and security is enforced in the world. Either we have a collective security approach, which engages the determination of multiple nations, preferably the United Nations, or we relegate it to an enforcement by a superpower or even medium power in a regional dispute, that can enforce the peace or the action that it seems to think is desirable.
Government Orders
What I think is lacking in this case is an evident desire on the part of the nations that sat and made this decision to carry through to its logical conclusion the collective security concept, which would have engaged the minds of all those members of the Security Council in the decision to take offensive military action against the renegade country Iraq.
Rather than doing that, the procedure was short-circuited and simply delegated to the President of the United States to make on his own. As I said in my speech, I do not think that is the way the world should work in 1991. If we are going to ensure that we do have continuing peace and security and are not subject simply to the whims of a superpower, we must hope that the world determines mechanisms that can ensure, first, that action is taken when it is necessary; but, second, by doing that we establish, a series of precedents to demonstrate that there should not be a double standard and to prevent the need for collective security from arising. That can only happen when we really do have a clear system in international law that has proven to be effective and workable. And I think we have lost that.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: During the time that I have been in this House, I have felt uneasy about being a Canadian on a number of occasions, particularly with the passing of the free trade agreement, uneasy about Canada's loss of its independent economic objectives, with the slashing of social programs, with what that has done to the caring and compassionate society that Canada has a reputation for. But never have I felt so uneasy about being a Canadian as I have over these last few days at witnessing the outbreak of war against Iraq and this government's actions. I know that many Canadians share that unease. I will mention the extent to which my constituents have voiced their concerns to me in a moment.
Canadians know that this House is debating whether or not going to war against Iraq in pursuit of efforts to get Iraqi troops out of Kuwait was right or wrong. It has taken place, but that is what we are debating now, as to whether or not it was right or wrong.
Let me at the outset make my position perfectly clear. Along with millions of Canadians, I am firmly opposed to this government's decision to support war. I am opposed

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
to this government's decision to deploy Canada's young men and women in an offensive military role. I am opposed to this government's decision to involve Canada in an unnecessary and deadly war.
The decision to attack Iraq was and remains a morally unacceptable one. War in all its forms is madness. It seems incredible that the lessons of the past have not been learned. Have we learned nothing over the years? What will it take for this government and for President Bush to realize that the military offensive will solve nothing?
We all have a moral responsibility to stop this madness, to stop the carnage, to stop the killing of tens of thousands of people who just happen to have been born in Iraq, people who have no responsibility for the actions of Saddam Hussein. This war will have and is having severe political, economic, environmental and human costs, costs that could have been avoided if this government, the U.S. government and other governments had been as committed to peace as they have been to war.
This war is madness. Church groups the world over have pointed out that the unspeakable loss of innocent civilian lives is unacceptable on moral grounds. There can be no getting away from that. Those who support this military offensive have no choice but to accept some responsibility for the so many innocent people who have been killed and who will be killed as a result of this military offensive against Iraq. That is my position and that is as clearly as I can state it. But let me also make it clear that I share the world's revulsion at the actions of Saddam Hussein. It is reprehensible and immoral, and there can be no getting away from that.
Let me also say that I wish for all Canadians involved in this war a safe and speedy return home.
I have wondered why over time this government appears to forget that people actually suffer from its practices, principles and legislation, from its attack, for example, on this country's social policies; that children actually go hungry because of its policies and by its refusal to put justice ahead of big business interests; that over 40,000 children die every day on this planet because Canada and other so-called civilized countries pursue the international policies they pursue, such as selling
Iraq and other dictators around the world the arms that they use to destroy innocent women, men and children.
As has been so clear over the last few days, war cannot resolve long-standing conflicts. It will only explode them wider and deeper. This war will not stop aggression but rather will accelerate the cycle of violence and revenge, and this may not be restricted just to the Middle East.
After this madness is over, then what? The killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis, Israelis, Saudis, Kuwaitis, and soldiers of the so-called allies, and injuring so many more, could well make it impossible for post-war diplomatic efforts to overcome. This massive attack on Iraq is no basis on which to build a new stable order in the region or in the world. Most likely, it will lead to years, if not decades, of vengeance and make it impossible to bring about reconciliation.
The NDP has a long and distinguished record in arguing that peaceful solutions must be sought to resolve disputes. That has not always made the New Democratic Party popular. But we and many before us have maintained these positions because we have been confident that they were, are and will remain morally right. Nothing made me so proud than to stand with my colleagues in the NDP in this House earlier this week when we alone of all members of this House voted for peace against war.
That resolution read that we support the sanctions and other activities of the United Nations, but that such support should exclude the involvement by Canada in a military attack on Iraq or Iraqi forces in Kuwait. Only the members of the New Democratic Party supported that resolution. Only the members of the New Democratic Party chose peace over war.
We alone among Canada's political parties stood with the majority of Canadians who demanded an end to the violence as a means of resolving disputes, who called for an end to the build-up to war, who called for an end to the madness, who called for peace.
We lost that point, but so did Canada and Canadians. In spite of their opposition to war and their call for peace, Canadians were dragged into war by this government. We in this House had the opportunity to speak out against Canadian forces being used to attack Iraq, and only the New Democratic Party stood with Canadians in voting for peace and against a military attack on Iraq.
January 17, 1991

While we have been urged by this government to fight for freedom and democracy in the Persian Gulf, we must remember that war is the very negation of both freedom and democracy.
The U.S. and its allies, including Canada, might win this war but only by adopting the self same tactics which we all condemn in Iraq. Canadians are appealing to this government to stop this resort to brute force and to work constructively for peace. The people of Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, the part of Canada which I am proud to represent in this House, have been telling me to speak out against military intervention. They have told me about their conception that this war is madness, and how sad and betrayed they feel as Canadians at having their government commit our young men and women in the gulf to attack Iraq.
The people of Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing have spoken out with only a few exceptions against this war. My riding has a significant population of Canadians of Mennonite heritage. They have a fine tradition of not only speaking for peace but of acting for peace, and acting in a peaceable manner. Their ancestors suffered because of their commitment to non-violent dispute resolution and I have heard from a large number of them. They have spoken out for peace and with disappointment at this government's decision to take Canada into a war.
I am reminded of the Cuban missile crisis when then Prime Minister Diefenbaker refused to be drawn into a potential war with Cuba, which the U.S. threatened to do. And that was in our own backyard, so to speak. Mr. Diefenbaker stood for an independent military role for Canada and we all were, and are, thankful for that. This government had the opportunity to stand for the same thing and refused.
As many experts point out, it seems that a so-called victory against Iraq will only lead to greater instability, greater hostility and greater conflict in the Middle East. It will not, it cannot solve anything. There will still need to be diplomacy and peacekeeping efforts after this war is all over.
Where once Canada would have had the international credibility to participate actively in these critical and creative activities it has, by its declaration of war against Iraq, forfeited any credibility in this dispute and perhaps in disputes to come. Canada cannot expect to be an
Government Orders
enemy one minute and an impartial arbitrator the next. For many Canadians this is the saddest part of this whole episode. Canada's reputation as a peaceable, peaceful and peacekeeping country has been seriously compromised. It is tragic indeed that one of the first results of the end of the cold war is a war. Have we really learned nothing?
Let us not forget the advice of so many experts, including the head of the CIA, William Webster, and United States Admiral Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that sanctions were working and, given enough time, would have worked to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Impatience and suffering do not justify war and even greater suffering.
In terms of support for the United Nations, we in the New Democratic Party and I personally, have supported every United Nations resolution which advocated a peaceful resolution to the crisis. We supported 11 out of the 12 Security Council resolutions. However, we did not support UN Security Council resolution 678 which imposed the January 15 deadline for Iraqi withdrawal and which authorized the use of force after this date. We oppose that resolution and we will continue to oppose that resolution. The United Nations Association in Canada is also concerned about the role that the United Nations played in this conflict.
I think that we will find over time that the United Nations has been irretrievably harmed by its actions over the last few months. Canada still has a role in resolving and stopping this war. Canada should work with all its energies towards diplomatic efforts to stop this war. It should press for an international conference aimed at resolving the situation in the whole Middle East region. It should argue for effective measures to resolve conflicts in the region, including solutions to border disputes. It should provide any and all humanitarian aid it can.
It should work as hard for peace as some have worked for war. Canada can offer so much, could have done so much, and can continue to do so much for world peace. It really is tragic for all of us that instead Canada chose war.
In closing, if the Prime Minister wants a fight, if there is a fight, I will fight with him. If there is a war, I will fight with him the war against poverty in this country and around the world, the war against hunger, the war
Government Orders

January 17, 1991

against homelessness, the war against violence and racism, the war against unemployment and the abuse of women and children, the war against illiteracy, a war in favour of saving our planet and protecting our environment, and a war in favour of ensuring dignity for all Canadians. I will fight that war with him, but he needs to get his priorities straightened out. Money was available for war but not available for hungry children.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, when you unleash the dogs of war, you never know on whom they will turn.

That is my message to the aggressors of this world. [English]
On August 2, Saddam Hussein invaded a smaller neighbouring country. At that point, our government did not see fit to recall Parliament. However, the United Nations Security Council deplored this act and unanimously imposed economic sanctions on August 6. Still, no recall of Parliament, until the very end of September.
During the fall session, little information was given to Parliament. Sanctions were not given enough time. No report was given to Parliament regarding sanctions. The government decided that it would be best just to meet in cabinet-

*. .secretly, never providing any information. The government always kept Parliament in the dark.

The government refused to have Parliament meet at the end of December and waited until January 15, a very infamous date. Prior to the Christmas season and after, it preferred committing our military to the gulf without proper debate and without giving sanctions the proper amount of time. That I deplore greatly, because it does not inform the full Parliament, it does not provide for unity in Canada when we are faced with a major horrific catastrophe in the world.
Did the sanctions work? Never has the committee of the United Nations ever reported on it. Our government did not report to Parliament. We have heard that it was
40 per cent effective and becoming more and more effective. This is what we understood.

But it was always information received indirectly, from outside sources.
Was enough time allowed for the sanctions to work? We don't know. Our party was in favour of negotiations and peace. Our party wanted sanctions but at the same time insisted on peace negotiations. That is the whole philosophy of the Liberal Party.
I heard the Prime Minister and members of cabinet mention Mr. Pearson's name several times. It was Pearson here and Pearson there, but always to justify their position, their philosophy, their approach. I noticed they always took what Mr. Pearson said out of context, to justify their own decisions. What I find really sickening is the way they suddenly changed Canada. This country used to be a proponent of peacekeeping.

Canada used to be a world renoun peacekeeper until our present government changed this.
How will we ever become neutral peacekeepers from now on? This is really a vety important question. This is really a turnaround in Canadian policy. We did not give sanctions, in my estimation, enough time.
If the government finds that this is incorrect, then I would add that it did not give Parliament enough information to know whether or not sanctions had been given enough time. All this time the Prime Minister made arbitrary decisions.
I made a survey in Carleton-Gloucester prior to the infamous date of January 15. We discovered that people wanted a negotiated peace and preferred sanctions.

On January 15,1 met a group of students from a school in Orleans, the Ecole elementaire Reine-des-Bois, accompanied by their school principal, Mr. Ouellet. The students arrived with a huge sign, a petition signed by all the students and asking the government and Parliament to discuss peace and only peace.
Phone calls and letters I received from my constituents in Carleton-Gloucester were about peace, not war. Parliament was not reconvened until January 15. I was here every day during the holidays, except for Christmas, and I noticed several members of the opposition were
January 17, 1991

here as well. We still hoped the government would be called back. Unfortunately, our Prime Minister preferred to act as though the British parliamentary system did not exist. Under this system, Parliament must sit so there can be dialogue and debate and the opinions of all parties can be heard. That did not happen. The only thing we saw was the Prime Minister acting like a company director.

-the Board of Directors to make decisions and then only to inform the shareholders.

In the motion that was presented and which I will quote in my speech, the government moved, on January 15 of all days:

That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.

My conclusion is that this kind of motion is fuzzy, unspecific, and full of interpretations.

The Liberal amendment moved that day was worded as follows:

That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in ending the aggression of Iraq against Kuwait through the continued use of economic sanctions, such support to exclude offensive military action by Canada at this time.
That is le quinze janvier. There was no military offensive, autre mots, at this time. This was voted on, may I point out, prior to the 6.45 p.m. announcement of war; the hostilities had taken place.
The NDP amendment read:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait through the continued use of economic sanctions, such support to exclude the involvement by Canada in a military attack on Iraq or Iraqi forces in Kuwait.
Government Orders
That meant, autre mots, no military offensive ever. [Translation]
And that is still the NDP's policy: Never defend yourself. However, at 6.45 p.m. on that fateful day after the motion was presented, the attack started and war was effectively declared.
At this point I would like to quote a letter sent to the Prime Minister by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on January 18, 1991. I will quote only the most important part-and this is from the Canadian bishops- which reads as follows: "We maintain this war should never have started. Economic sanctions and diplomatic mechanisms were not given enough time to be successful". The letter was signed by Robert Lebel, Bishop of Valleyfield, President of the Conference.
Hostilities started at 6.45 p.m. on January 16.

The motion by the government then became in my mind absolutely redundant. The government agenda is really the question here. What was its political agenda? Was it double-tracking with military the agenda of another country or countries? What did our government know?

What did it not share with all members of Parliament? I say the Prime Minister did not share that information. We all heard on television about the President of the U.S.S.R.

The President of U.S.S.R. apparently was informed one hour prior to the invasion. It is a well-known fact that when hostilities of this nature occur, especially when the United Nations is involved, the major country involved informs colleagues, friends, especially allies, and most especially those with whom it is going to fight shoulder to shoulder.
I suspect strongly that the Prime Minister knew before 6.45 p.m.-and he knew when he tabled that motion- that war was to take place the very same day he convened Parliament. He knew and did not inform Parliament. I do not find that proper in a parliamentaiy system.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
The government motion, in my mind, is now irrelevant; it is redundant.
Saddam Hussein then decided the next day, January 16, to attack Israel.

I think Saddam Hussein is a devil and a madman. We should put in his place right away. We now have another ally to defend, in this case Israel.

I must congratulate Israel for the restraint it has presented to date.

It has been attacked constantly. It knows how to defend themselves, and I admire Israel for holding back now. I condemn Saddam Hussein for attacking a country that was at peace, a country that did not attack first. We must protect our allies. We must protect the other countries.
We know that 6.45 p.m. is now history. Hostilities have started. There is a war on. I think this whole debate has become redundant. I fail to understand why the government is so anxious to have members debating all day and all night, non-stop. We should take advantage of this moment to unite.
Look at Israel, for instance. Are the parties in Israel's Parliament at each other's throats, launching accusations, making stupid remarks and contradicting each other? No, they are united. That is what we should be today. Now that hostilities have started, now that a war is on and Israel, a country that was at peace, is being attacked, we must realize everything has changed. The Parliament of Canada, the government, the opposition and independent members should stand together, because our common objective is peace.

We must stand together. We must support our Armed Forces in the gulf. Presently their activities are in sweep and escort operations que j'appuis. I have one compliment to give to our government, and that is its decision to provide a field hospital.

I am sure that all Canadians will agree, whatever their political affiliation, that providing a field hospital is a positive gesture, entirely in line with the philosophy of Lester B. Pearson.

That was a proper decision, if there was one. This country must support the United Nations. This country must be united. Parliament must be united. The allies must be united. We must be united in all our actions to secure peace.

I have to say this, and I am not ashamed, that every night before I go to sleep, I pray for our forces and for peace. I would urge everyone who is not actively involved in activities in the gulf, other than talking, dialoguing and trying to find a way to bring peace, to find time during the day to say a prayer for peace, for mankind, for the men and women involved, whether they are on active duty in the Persian Gulf or happen to be parents in Canada, the United States or Europe, throughout the world. Our main purpose in life should always be peace and happiness for ourselves and others during our short lives on this earth.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have an observation, a comment on the member's speech. One of the things that I wanted to clear up for the record is the fact that the Secretary' of State for External Affairs did report to the Standing Committee of External Affairs and International Trade on December 10. On that day he went through the use of sanctions and the effects of sanctions on Iraq. I just wanted to bring that to the member's attention.
In summation on December 10, 1990, the minister said that sanctions were necessary but not sufficient to meet our declared objectives: the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait and the restoration of its sovereignty and legitimate government.
I wanted to bring that to the member's attention. I do not think it is a whole lot different from the conclusion of his former leader on Wednesday in this House. The member handed out a compliment to our government. I

will hand out a compliment to the member in exchange. Although the member disagreed with his former leader on Wednesday, I do give him credit for sitting here, on camera, throughout that speech. I think that tells us something about the member in question.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Carleton-Charlotte for his compliments. I always admired his sincerity.
I want to tell my colleague who made these comments in response to my speech, if I may, that it is in fact up to cabinet to give proof of the effect of the sanctions, whether they worked or not. We should not have to play guessing games and government backbenchers should not have to make comments. I suggest the burden of the proof lies with the ministers.
Before closing, I must remind the hon. member that a UN committee was to report on the sanctions. As far as I know, there has been no such report yet, unless the hon. member or the Prime Minister are once more withholding information from members of this House.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you have probably noticed, today the focus of the debate is rapidly shifting, if not by the hour, certainly by the day. When we started debating the deadline for the sanctions, diplomatic initiatives came to mind. There was still hope and still some time left. We have gradually moved from that analysis in our debate to a discussion of the role of the armed forces on escalation, to bringing hostilities to an end, and to rebuilding peace on the ruins caused by this war.
Parliament was recalled when the clock was almost striking midnight. It was at the very last minute that Parliament was recalled and it certainly did not give parliamentarians a sense that our debate and our vote was meaningful in relations to the events outside this building and away from the Hill. Unfortunately, that was not an isolated case. There is a pattern.
I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in August of last year Canadian ships were committed by the Prime Minister after he met President Bush and two
Government Orders
weeks before the United Nations Security Council approved the sanctions on August 25.
In September, Canadian CF-18 aircraft were committed 10 days before the recall of Parliament.
I must also bring to your attention the fact that Canadian ships had to delay their arrival in Suez in September in order to circumvent the legal requirements that Parliament be recalled within 10 days of a warship going on active service.
I do not need to remind you that in November, when the Security Council set the deadline of January 15, the Secretary of State for External Affairs downplayed the deadline by calling it artificial. Well, events have shown us how artificial that deadline was.
In January, Parliament was given 13 hours this week before the deadline came into effect to start the debate. When the bombs began to fall on Baghdad, we found ourselves in the midst of this debate.
Evidently, there is something wrong in the consultation process on the part of the Prime Minister with his own Cabinet and on the part of the Prime Minister with his own Parliament.
The people of Canada, of whom Parliament is a reflection, have not had much to say in this debate. Canada went to war before Parliament could complete this debate. The decision of course was made some time ago, long before Canadian CF-18 pilots would escort bombing runs over Iraq and Kuwait, and long before KC-135 tanker planes would refuel U.S. bombers in the gulf region. This lack of participation on the part of the Canadian people through its parliamentary system is only one of several disturbing facets of what has happened in recent weeks and months.
At this stage, as we are concluding this debate tonight, we realize that the demands of the war machine are virtually insatiable. There will be demands for more Canadian participation. There will be demands for ground troops, for combat troops and the like. We do not really know where Canadians stand on this matter. Maybe it would be fair to assume that the Canadian public is as divided on this matter as this Parliament is. It is legitimate to ask whether Canadians want war to resolve the Kuwait problem. Do Canadians want to see Canada participate in a U.S.-led war, mandated by a Security Council consisting of only 15 nations, albeit very

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
powerful ones? Do we, as parliamentarians, really know what lies ahead?
There are several dangers that must be outlined and put on record, as we can see them today, on behalf of the Canadian people who expect us to make a decision and cast a vote with the best of our ability to look into the future.
The first danger that might face us very soon is that this war might become a confrontation between the West and the Muslim world. It is an horrendous prospect. If this were to happen, it would turn the clock back, not a decade, or a century, but several centuries. It is something that must not happen, but it is a very possible danger.
Another danger that comes to mind is that of a complete dissipation of Canada's international reputation as a referee, as a peacemaker, and as a nation that does not take sides in a war, but does attempt to resolve conflict and has the confidence of the parties involved. This is a role that Canada has increasingly enjoyed in the world. This is an asset that is very important abroad because it has an enormous amount of positive benefits.
This dissipation, is something that is of profound concern to many of us. It is a dissipation on the international scene which we are witnessing at home in a more tangible manner. We see it in institutions that bind east with west and north with south, institutions such as the CBC or Via Rail. Dissipation has also taken place in the last six years in federal-provincial relations.
A third area of danger has to do with the environment. This is not the time to go into greater depth in this matter. Scientists have elaborated and made some rather disturbing forecasts as to what could be the damage to the environment by the production of dangerous gases should an oil field take fire as a result of war activities.
Fourth, there is danger in the presence in Muslin countries of foreign aid projects which are run by western volunteers. Those initiatives have a profound significance in a variety of ways, particularly in Asia and in some parts of Africa, and they might be in danger if there were a serious backlash on the part of Muslin communities to the presence of western volunteers.
What must we do? We cannot stop at outlining dangers. We we also have to look at the future and explore, where we can, what Canada's role could be during these hostilities and after the conclusion of the war. I will just dwell on one of these two topics very briefly. That is the role of our Armed Forces which my colleague from Ottawa South has touched upon. It has a particular significance and could be of importance to our future.
I refer to the fact that we have fewer than 2,000 men and women involved in these hostilities less. In relation to the 500,000 Armed Forces personnel involved in that theatre as members of the U.S. led force, our participation is marginal. It represents probably less than 1 per cent of the total forces.
Our participation during this war, of course, can be of two kinds, one offensive and the other defensive, and we have a choice. We can make a choice between either of these two roles. We can make a decision and make a shift because the numbers involved are not so large.
I submit that instead of being involved in offensive exercises, such as air raids, fighting on the ground, attacking installations, and any other offensive activities of a military nature, we could expand and reinforce and become fully involved in medical services, support services in field hospitals, in the care of the wounded, in the protection of those involved in the provision of these services, and the like, in other words, in a humanitarian defensive role within a military context. I think that Canada would have enormous respect if it were to perform such a role. It would then not be seen as being part of an attacking offensive contingent with destructive motivations.
As I said, our forces are small and therefore it should be reasonably easy to shift our presence from the offensive to the defensive. It would also be a role that would be readily identifiable and permit us to build confidence in Canada in the Muslim regions of the world where these events are being watched very carefully and very closely.
When the war is over, hopefully very soon, the building of peace in the Middle East will have to start. We will be looking at the ruins and devastation, both in human and material terms. Confidence will have to be restored and it will have to replace confrontation. We will have to build confidence and we will have to build on
January 17, 1991

confidence. It is during these hostilities that Canada can lay the foundation for confidence building for the period following the war.
Therefore, the role of Canada's Armed Forces is of great importance from the point of view of Canada's particular interest and Canada's particular role internationally. There is an interest that we might look for.
We are a middle power. We will want to develop we will have to develop, new relations in this part of the world which by then will be war torn and in shambles.
In conclusion, at the same time we will have to look at a United Nations, its role, and the way it functions. In so doing, we will have to look at the charter under which it operates and at the Security Council which is its main engine and executive centre.
At this point in history, the charter is 45 years old. Obviously it needs to be re-examined and reshaped. It needs to reflect the new face of the world community, the family of nations, because today it has over 150 member nations, compared to the 60 or 70 it had in San Francisco in 1945.
If we do that-and I would urge that we should do that-the question of the veto power has to be examined. The veto power is given to the five most powerful nations, and they can determine the direction of the world at times by just saying no. We should be asking some difficult questions, including: Why should any of these five nations be given the power to say no? Is this power still relevant? Does it serve the interest of the world community? If it does not, then we should ask ourselves whether this power, which may have had historical meaning and been a necessity in 1945, ought to be removed so as to place all members of the Security Council on a equal footing.
This concept has emerged in recent decades in many other institutions where fewer and fewer privilege powers are assigned to a limited number of individuals. That concept has also to reach within the walls of the United Nations Security Council, I submit.
These and other questions must be tackled soon if the world community is to be truly reflected and represented through the decisions of the Security Council. As the charter is written now, I doubt that it is the case. I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the decision of
Government Orders
setting the deadline for the sanctions made by the Security Council has set history in a direction which we, on this side of the House believe to be the wrong direction for humanity to take.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have just a short comment on some of the opening remarks of the hon. member in relation to public opinion and whether or not we are doing the right thing.
It is up to the people of Canada to determine whether the government in fact is doing the right thing, but I would like to quote some numbers. I know it depends on whose figures you are looking at and whether they are right or wrong. They are from January 17.
The majority of Canadians, 71 per cent, approve of Canada's actions to date in the gulf. This represents a change from January 15 when it was about 58 per cent. The majority of Canadians, 77 per cent, favour maintaining or increasing our military commitment. An interesting statistic is that only 11 per cent favour withdrawing all forces from the region. Of course, withdrawing all forces from the region was a position that the Leader of the Opposition took just four short days ago.
In response to public opinion, no one knows whether they are right or wrong, and I don't think any politician should put his faith in public opinions. For what it is worth, I just wanted to pass that on to the hon. member.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that implicit in that information on the part of the member is the question of whether or not I concur with his findings. As he quite rightly pointed out, it is a well-known fact that one selects statistics very carefully in order to make one's point, and I am sure the hon. member has chosen those statistics very carefully.
The hon. member also knows that Gallup polls change considerably and that the very' same data could dramatically change almost overnight if casualties were to begin to happen. That was demonstrated by a poll taken in the United States where the support of American public opinion would decline very rapidly as the number of possible casualties increased. In a way, that is a sad statement because it would seem that we assign a price to life that depends on the number of victims and it determines whether or not we are in favour of the use of

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
force, depending on the number of lives that would be lost as a result of that activity.
I would point out to the hon. member that according to him 11 per cent of Canadians were in favour of withdrawing from the region. Withdrawing from the region is not such a bad idea if we start with the premise that we do not believe in using force in resolving the situation in Kuwait.
For Canada to perform a role as a peacemaker or referee in this matter, maintaining its reputation, would not have been such a bad idea, withdrawing once the hostilities had started. It would have shown a high degree of sensitivity on our part for the solution for which we are all searching, a solution other than the use of war.
I would not be surprised if, in the weeks and months ahead, Canadian public opinion were to shift in a direction much less supportive of the war initiative than it is now. That process of declining support is already in place, in my understanding of the polls.


Marc Ferland: Briefly, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the hon. member for Davenport. The member and most of his colleagues referred to various types of sanctions and suggested the sanctions against Iraq should have been intensified.
I would like to know if he agrees with the official position taken by his party on December 21, 1980. On page 4 of this statement, we read that it is the position of the Liberal Party that Canada should ask Turkey to cut off water supply and to restrict food supply. In other words, should we starve and deprive of water the civilian population of Iraq to retaliate to Saddam Hussein's aggression on Kuwait? Is that an acceptable position for a country like ours to refuse to implement the fundamental principles set out in the UN's Charter of rights which states that it is illegal to cut off water supply and deprive people of food, especially civilians?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my colleague that our party's position is clearly stated in the first part of our release.
We explained why we agreed with the government on one point, taking up what I consider to be a very positive
stand. We also discussed the points on which we were at variance regarding the sanctions the hon. member referred to. The validity of that measure may be debatable, but our position should not be rejected on the basis of a detail regarding the implementation of the sanctions. We must take a global approach. It is true that, from an ideological point of view, we are taking two different stands. There is the position of the hon. member's party that war is the answer, and there is ours that sanctions are the answer.
We need more time to prove that political and economic pressures are the key to finding the appropriate solution. If my colleague wishes to go into the merits of this proposal, I am prepared to examine them with him. I am convinced that together we could come to an agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Okanagan-Shu-swap rising with a question or comments?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should indicate that there has been some discussion with the Chair as to the appropriate next speaker. I think I indicated to the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie that he might be next.
There is some concern about proportionate representation of speakers and I wonder if hon. members would just give me a moment to consider it. I want to be very fair here.
I want to say to the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie that I have had some discussion. Keeping in mind the number of members, the number of members of parties, and the number of Independents and members of the bloc who have taken part in the debate-and I know the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie would co-operate with the Chair-I am going to call the member for Okanagan-Shuswap, followed by the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. We will then move over to a Liberal member.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, and then the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.
January 17, 1991


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your judicious judgment this evening.
It goes without saying that the last few days have indeed been difficult days for every member of this House, and I speak in a very non-partisan manner on this. This issue has faced Parliament over the last few days. When we initiated the debate on this resolution, we were in fact not yet in a situation of war. Since then, the situation in the world has preceded the debate in the House of Commons. Suffice it to say that the issue was whether or not Parliament should in fact be sending Canada's young men and women into battle and now the extension of the debate is to decide just what the extent of that commitment should be.
It is a very deep personal and moral issue that every member of the House has been struggling with over the the past week. That is why the New Democratic Party, in its wisdom, with regard to members voting on this resolution before the House, had decided to free its members to speak their own conscience and to vote freely as they felt personally. We were disappointed that the government did not see the merits of a free and unhindered vote on such an issue of personal conviction.
As we have debated over the last few days, profound changes have taken place in the world around us. There has been a failure to secure a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the crisis in the Middle East. With this failure, the 28-nation coalition of the United Nations has seen to exercise its final and tragic option. The world is once again at war.
No one can condone the brutal annexation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. I think I speak for all members to say that dictators like Hussein must never be allowed to oppress other nations. We made the mistake in the Second World War, and I think all nations were very concerned that we do not make that mistake again. That is why the 28-member coalition of the United Nations moved to turn back that aggression. That is why the international embargo against trade with Iraq was implemented. That is why the United Nations served notice that Hussein must withdraw from Kuwait. That is why the economic blockade was implemented.
This brings me to a critical point, the economic blockade. The economic blockade against Iraq was in fact beginning to bite and beginning to bite hard. Striking
Government Orders
evidence was given back in December by the United States Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. William Webster, that the Iraqi exports had in fact at that time been slashed by some 97 per cent. That was even greater than the cuts that were made to the imports to Iraq, which were at that time slashed by some 90 per cent.
U.S. Defence Secretary, Dick Cheney, a few months ago said that the sanctions and the embargo were beginning to have an impact. It was back a couple of months ago. He admitted that the UN trade embargo had clearly been effective, and I quote, "in closing off the spare parts in military supplies".
The Baghdad regime was inexorably running out. It was running out of the commodity which it so desperately required, the commodity of money. Its oil reserves are the drip-feed of Baghdad's life support system. Without them, without the ability to sell its oil and use that cash to purchase armaments and supplies, I submit that the dictatorship would have ultimately perished.
It begs the question which has been asked time and time again in this House also why the decision was made to draw an arbitrary line in the sands of time on January 15 and say that at that date negotiations would cease and the trigger would be pulled. Why was that deadline imposed? Why was President Bush not prepared to allow time for the sanctions to bite harder?
There have been many arguments presented in the House with regard to that critical point. Some members have stated that it would take too long for the embargo to take hold. Others have said that it would be unlikely that the coalition of nations could have held together for that long. It would begin to disintegrate and therefore it would be emasculated. It has been said elsewhere that it would be too costly to maintain that embargo, but how costly is the price of war? How costly is the price of human life?
There have been other arguments, I submit valid arguments, that given time would also have allowed Hussein to muster the forces, to reinforce the troops, and to dig in even deeper. I am not a military strategist and I do not know the answers to these questions. It may be correct; it may not be. I am not in a position in terms of a military strategy to argue the truth of these points.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
The fact remains that sufficient time was not given for those sanctions to take hold.
I heard an argument earlier this evening from one of the members on the government side that the economic blockade was in fact hurting the poor, the lower income earners, and the women and children of Iraq. Is bombing them more humanitarian and more humane? I submit that it is not.
The critical point that I want to make-and it has been made by other members of my caucus and it has been made by members of the Liberal opposition-is that insufficient time was given to exhaust all possible diplomatic and economic actions before that final tragic decision had to be made. Time was not given to squeeze Hussein until he finally realized he had to leave.
The war which now engulfs the Middle East may well have been inevitable. Perhaps waiting longer may have made it worse, but we will never know the answer to that question. I cannot help but feel that we may have moved in too fast. For the love of God, we should have waited longer. The price of human life is simply too precious to sacrifice. This war was premature and this war is also incompatible with the long-term interests for the area of the Middle East. It is incompatible with the restoration of peace in the area.
Canada's involvement with the economic blockade is very much justified and its continued involvement unfortunately now jeopardizes its traditional and historical role as a peacekeeping nation. It has tarnished our reputation. It has bloodied Canadian hands.
Having said that, I want to say: Don't get me wrong on this. No one can condone the actions of Saddam Hussein. No one can condone the atrocities that were perpetrated upon Kuwait. No one can justify the military annexation of another country. No one can tolerate the pillaging that took place, the plundering of villages, and the raping of women and children. No one can tolerate that kind of inhumane action. Hussein had to be stopped. That is, indeed, the bottom line.
Let us also remember that the apocalyptic scenario of modern warfare, with the chemical and biological weaponry, and the potential for nuclear retaliation, serves as a
potent reminder that diplomacy has always been and will always be the best possible solution.
The economic sanctions were working. Given time, we could have ground Hussein into an abject and bloodless surrender, but the decision was made to discontinue the diplomatic path, to pull the trigger.
I want to submit to the House that it is really ironic when we look at it. It was the Americans themselves who armed Iraq, who trained Iraqi soldiers, who assisted Iraq in its fight with Iran, and who taught it the technology of modern warfare. Now we see the sleek missiles supplied by the Americans are in fact being launched against them. I think that fact alone speaks volumes about the ultimate consequences of the international arms trade.
We should keep in mind that the enemy is not the Iraqi people. The enemy is a dictatorial tyrant by the name of Saddam Hussein. I fear for the Iraqi people tonight for they are the ones who are to be the most devastated in this tragedy.
It is ironic that the technological wizardry of modern warfare has made it ever more deadly and pin-point accurate. Surgical is a word that has been used-and the same technology that has brought about modem warfare brings it right into our living rooms. We can turn it off. We can watch commercials. As we are having dinner, we can see the surgical strikes. It is in fact sanitized. It is a sanitized war. People have been clustered about their televisions watching commanders explaining surgical strikes and neutralizing targets, kicking ass, high-tech style.
It has eliminated the human element of war, the human tragedy of war. While it is very crucial we have the information through the media, at the same time I fear that it has desensitized this nation and will desensitize us further. It makes it easier to accept war the next time.
I want to put it into context with a passage written by Mr. Christopher Black, a Toronto lawyer and freelance writer. He writes of war, saying: "This country, for reasons still veiled behind platitudes of freedom and standing up to aggression, has begun the journey into a world of unimaginable terror, a world of disciplined and sanctioned murder, of gaping wounds and blackened burned flesh, of young men screaming in agony, of the inferno of flame-throwers, napalm, disintegrating planes
January 17, 1991

Government Orders
and tanks blazing in the desert night, a world of spilled intestines and swollen, stinking death". That is the reality. That is the human element of war and that is why all war is wrong.
This war need not have been, at least not yet. It was premature. It was unnecessary, but now that the trigger has been pulled it is no longer our choice. We are involved. I want to make it perfectly clear that in that context Canada, as a member of the United Nations has agreed to abide by these decisions.
Now that push has come to shove, it is my personal perspective that Canada should continue to play an active role within that United Nations alliance. But what should our role be? Should it in fact be an offensive role, a role of attack and destroy? I submit that it should not. Apart from the F-18s, Canada really does not have the kind of military muscle and the technological acumen to participate in offensive action.
Canada has a moral obligation as a nation known for its peacekeeping abilities to work within the alliance in a very positive way to seek an end to the tragedy of warfare. It can, and it should, play a vital role in the provision of medical and humanitarian aid. It can, and it should, continue to provide defensive cover for the ships in the gulf.
There is a role for Canada in this theatre of war. We simply cannot cut and run. But our role should be a role of humanitarian medical aid and defensive cover. It should not be offensive. It should reflect our continued resolve to right what has become a terrible wrong.
I have no doubt the resolution of this crisis will prove crucial to the collective future of the United Nations and in fact crucial to the future of world democracy.
As I close, I want to state again that dictators such as Saddam Hussein have to be stopped. That is the bottom line. That is the final option.
In addition to that comment, I can only say that it is tragically unfortunate that to do so the world community had to exercise that final option and enter the theatre of war. I hope and pray that we do not have to do so in the future.


Marc Ferland: I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his excellent speech. I must remind him, however, of the efforts, unprecedented in the history of Canadian diplomacy, that were made to prevent this war in the Persian Gulf.
The fact is that, in the 16 weeks before the Gulf war started, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, had over 50 bilateral talks with various key players. If we ou add to that the other 50 or so multilateral meetings he attended, as well as the Prime Minister's many meetings and efforts, this certainly is the largest diplomatic move ever undertaken by Canada. It may even be larger than that undertaken during WWII or when Canada provided assistance to the UN in the Korean war.
Canada did make these efforts, but it would seem that members on his side of the House do not recognize the incredible efforts Canada made so that this tragedy could be avoided. I wish my colleague would at least recognize these facts and praise the government for these unprecedented efforts.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I certainly recognize the member's comments in terms of the historical action that Canada has played in both world wars and the Korean conflict. We did play a very proud role. Many Canadians never returned to their homeland as a result of sacrificing their lives in the cause of world freedom. There is no question about that. We all recognize that and do so every year when we attend Remembrance Day ceremonies throughout this land.
At the same time I would submit to my colleague opposite that the world is entering a new arena, where the active participation in warfare will someday no longer be required. Canada has to provide a leading role. As a traditional peacekeeping nation, as a nation that has sought to find the diplomatic option at all costs, Canada has to continue to provide that role in whichever way it can, even when other nations are in active war. We are in this war. Let us recognize it. We do have a role to play, but I do not think our role is necessarily an offensive military role.
Let us face it, we are not a superpower nation. Admittedly, we do not have the technological acumen and the training for offensive action that the U.S. troops

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
and the troops of Great Britain have. Traditionally we have played a different role in modern times. I think that we have to continue to do that.
Particularly in light of the conflict that is facing us in the Persian Gulf, we have to recognize that there is going to be great need for medical assistance. We are setting up a field hospital a few short kilometres from what could be described as the front line. We fully support that. The provision of medical aid is going to be a critical necessity if the war ends up being a protracted war. There is going to be a great need for humanitarian aid. With Jordan opening its borders to refugees, there is going to be a flood of refugees out of the Middle East. Canada must play a vital role in providing assistance for those refugees.
I recognize the fact that we had to seek the military option in previous years, but that does not mean that it commits us to an offensive military option in modem times.


Gilles Duceppe: As I rise to speak in this debate, Mr. Speaker, Canada is at war and the prevailing sentiment is deep concern.
Those who were for war are wondering how long it will last, how many lives will be lost, and what will happen after that. Those who were against are wondering whether there is anything that can be done against that war. Should they give up and passively let the current carry them? And, like the others, they also wonder how many lives will be lost. Just where can this war lead us? Was it worth it, particularly when we see and hear since the beginning that an attack against Israel might very well trigger retaliation, and Israel would have every reason indeed to defend herself and protect her people against an attack?
That, however, would completely alter the course, the scope, and the intensity of the war. What would happen in Jordan, Syria, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria under pressure from their people? Would they side with Saddam Hussein? And Mauritania and Turkey, are they not making Saddam Hussein the hero of the Arab world? Did the world, our planet, deserve to be drawn into such a risky endeavour, on the eve of the year 2000, in year one after the cold war?
Many hopes have been lost now, particularly among younger people. Polls show that Canadians are against war and want peace. I am glad to see these thousands of people throughout the world, even in the United States; I think about the 300,000 men and women demonstrated in Germany, and the many Canadians who took to the street in Quebec and Montreal marched for peace.
Right now that is the most encouraging indication for the future. That feeling of peace must now become the foundation of the new international order where state-to-state relations will be governed by right rather than might, something which, as early as the 18th century, Emmanuel Kant kept hoping for and called the universal republic. In this morning's Le Droit, Adrien Cantin wrote that we must prepare for post-war times right now.
It aptly sums up what I feel and what I think today. I did not rise to while time away, for as an elected member I believe that in such circumstances we do have a role to play. We have every indication that the people of Quebec and other Canadians want peace. Since the past is oftentimes our garantee for the future, it would be appropriate to examine our conscience. Questions have to be addressed to the government right here in the House. Why are we at war? How come we have reached this point?
We all know that the United States, Japan and the European Economic Community had domestic policy priorities with respect to this war, particularly their oil supplies. We all know as well that the United States play the role of policeman in the world, and is always closely linked to ever stiffer international competition to find and maintain new markets.
But does Canada have such domestic policy priorities? Oil? I doubt it, considering that Canada is an oil producing country. For example, Quebec gets only 1.2 per cent of its oil supplies from the Middle East, from Saudi Arabia. It could not be argued that this is an absolute strategic requirement. We also know that Canada has never used strong-arm tactics to secure a place on international markets, which explains our country's excellent reputation.
This is certainly why, when trying to justify our Armed Forces' involvement in this war, the Mulroney government never put forward any other argument then Canada's good name.
January 17, 1991

Again, there are more questions than answers. In what have Canada's best interests been better served since August 2, than since January 16, when the war started. Finally, has Canada a policy for the Middle East and, if so, what is it? How could the Canadian government drag us so deeply in to this war without being politically and morally responsible for the men, women and children who will die? How could it fail to explain to us, without being asked, what situation is likely to develop after the war?
Has Canada a policy for the Middle East? Has Canada recognized the need to call a peace conference for the Middle East, on the basis of all and I emphasize the word all-UN resolutions concerning that area? What is its opinion about the political stability of that area? Has it many proposals to make?
How does it think it will be possible, should the allied forces prevail, to ensure Kuwait's security? Does it know how long our Armed Forces will remain there? Does it feel that Canada's good name in the world has been enhanced by this diplomacy which does not reflect in any way our country's strategic interests and resemble much too closely, for instance that of the United States?
If Canada had actively pursued a new diplomatic approach for the Middle East, an approach based on the need for an international peace conference in that area, which would recognize the absolute necessity, definitely solve the Palestinian issue, to create a Palestinian state, I sincerely believe that Canada would have been better served, that its reputation would have been enhanced and that peace could have been maintained.
When I arrived here, my position was this: Denounce Iraq's aggression against Kuwait and demand the withdrawal of Iraqi forces; maintain the economic sanctions against Iraq with the participation of our military forces; oppose all active involvement of our Armed Forces in actual combat; and finally support as much as possible all diplomatic efforts which might result in an international conference on the Middle East situation.
This conference should deal with the problems of Kuwait, Lebanon, Cyprus, Palestine, as well as the whole issue of the relations between Israel and its Arabs neighbors. If we really want to see the light at the end of the tunnel in that region, taking into account the need to protect the strategic interest, of western countries and
Government Orders
above all, the need to recognize the legitimate aspirations of these people, this international conference should address the following issues: first, the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait; second, the participation of all Middle East countries and nations, including the PLO; third, the PLO's recognition of Israel's basic right to exist as a state; fourth, Israel's recognition of a Palestinian State.
I wish to emphasize that all these conditions are contained in resolutions already adopted by the United Nations, an organization which would be called upon to play a vital role as'the chairman of this conference. If we want to have a fighting chance at achieving our purpose, we should avoid at all costs the temptation of trying to identify the good and the bad. Refusing all absolutism, we should refrain from trying to interpret reality in black and white.
Saddam Hussein is neither the champion of the Palestinian cause, nor the saviour of the Third World, nor a martyr to the cause of Islam. He is a dictator who for a long time enjoyed the support of Western powers, including the United States. For that matter, George Bush is not a peace and justice loving man who is adverse to all forms of aggression. He has quite a track record, from Grenada to Panama in his support of a great many dictators, including precisely Saddam Hussein.
On the other hand, we should not overlook the fact that the U.S.S.R., an important member of the Security Council, took advantage of the Middle East crisis to crush violently the legitimate aspirations of the Baltic States. It is not by resorting to such analyses, therefore, that we will be able to grasp the full meaning of reality. The only possible understanding should be based on the recognition that all men and women have the right to live their lives to the fullest, that all people have the right to express themselves, and that all countries have the right to exist. These are high ideals, but they are the only ones on which to base a true international order which would guarantee the greatest possible social justice for all.
We should not overlook the fact that in the Middle East context such Israeli leaders as Menahem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were once terrorists themselves and that, more recently, that it was only on the express order of the supreme court of that country that the Israeli government reluctantly agreed to give out gas masks to

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Palestinians in the occupied territories, and only one per family at that.
As we must prepare for the after war period, Canada should position itself now on that basis, for this war will not eliminate the causes of the current conflict. I came here feeling that I could not support this war not because I am in principle against all wars, but because, in my heart of hearts, I felt that this war would not change anything in the gulf crisis, and the outbreak of the war has not made me change my mind.
Of course, my heart is with the men and women of Quebec and the rest of Canada who are directly involved in the war and who have been risking their lives every moment since last Wednesday. I fully support them and I sincerely hope that this war will soon be over for them. The Mulroney Government has never had and will never have my support for his action since last August 2.
We should not fail to see the forest for the trees. There are circumstances when people should not act against their principles, especially when these principles, rather than war harbour true and viable solutions for the future.
For these reasons, I will not support the government's proposal.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment to make and a question to ask.
I was quite impressed by the member's speech and discourse. I was impressed by the emotion with which he spoke about Canada. Would the hon. member be good enough to speak briefly on what he thinks Canada's role should be in this war, rather than the one suggested by the government?


Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the government would be well advised now to step up its diplomatic effort, for it is wrong to support that diplomacy ends in time of war. As a matter of fact, it becomes actually more intense, although it might not necessarily be visible for all to see.
Moreover, I suggest that the government should put pressure on the Americans who are definitely the true force behind the United Nations' resolution. They are in charge. Again, I suggest that the government should put pressure on the Americans and remind them that the intended objective, at least judging from the UN resolutions, is not to crush Iraq, but to ensure that the Iraqi forces leave Kuwait. Otherwise, not only would they not respect the spirit and the letter of the UN resolutions, but they would completely destabilize that area, and cause a ground swell of hatred against both the United States and the whole Western world. Canada should guard against that. I suggest that this is the type of action Canada should take at this time.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for asking a question, because after 12 hours in the House, I want to be right next to the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. It's pretty hard to run to your seat to ask a question, so I appreciate the hon. member's initiative. I don't want the kids to think there is more than one of us when they see us first in one corner of the House and then somewhere else.
This is the first time I have heard the hon. member, a colleague from Quebec, speak to a matter of such importance. I am always disappointed that members generally show so little interest in international affairs. I am disappointed because I always said that one of the main reasons I was attracted to Ottawa, in addition to defending Quebec and my own identity, was my abiding interest in international affairs, and I think that as federal members our focus should be international as well as national. We don't belong at this level of government if we have no thoughts on the matter to offer our fellow Canadians.
My point is that I was pleasantly surprised by what the hon. member said. I was of course delighted, but not just because we seem to share the same views. After all, I have always respected colleagues who do not share my views, when they express them with a great deal of eloquence, intelligence and vigour. In the circumstances, some of the good speeches I have heard in the House so far included two by Bloc quebecois members. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean made a remarkable speech,

January 17, 1991

and in fact, in caucus I and several other members recommended that our colleagues read it very carefully. And this is certainly not someone who shares our political philosophy.
In the same vein, the hon. member for Laurier- Sainte-Marie provides a fresh and new outlook on this very dramatic situation. Another great speech we heard this afternoon was by the hon. member for Esquimalt- Jean de Fuca from British Columbia. I say, because it is getting late, and I wish people-I am not referring to members of my own party but to members of other parties-would read it. There is a man who must feel incredibly torn. He said himself: "I am a Jew." In any case, I felt I had to draw your attention to his speech, one of the great speeches like the one I just heard.
I do not really have any questions, except that I would like the hon. member to expand for a few minutes on the international conference which has never materialized. What does the hon. member think this conference would do for problems in the Middle East, since he referred to it in his speech?


Gilles Duceppe: I think that if the UN has a role to play, and people are talking about a new world order, there is a role here for an international organization. I think that role should be played by the UN. It should be made possible for Mr. Perez de Cuellar to hold such a conference.
Furthermore, as I pointed out this conference would include the PLO, provided it deletes from its Charter the statement that it does not recognize Israel's right to be a sovereign state. That is imperative. Similarly, I think Israel has an important role to play. What if Israel were to say: "We agree to having a peace conference and to having the PLO at the conference, we agree to a Palestinian State as provided in the resolutions passed long ago at the UN, provided the PLO recognizes Israel"? It is impossible to negotiate when one party is against the continued existence of the other party. I think that is obvious.
I think that is where we should look for a solution to these problems. Until there is a conference-today, there is a problem with Iraq. In 1967, it was Egypt, and again in 1973. There were problems in 1948. In 1956 it was Suez, and I forgot Cyprus and Lebanon-until there is a conference it is like a puzzle with a piece missing. At least at a conference, people will talk to each other.
Government Orders
The UN will be able to provide for ways to enforce its decisions, and I am thinking of economic sanctions, properly supported and applied by all countries, based on the legitimate status of the UN. I think that is how we must see international relations in the future, and not the way Foglia described this morning in La Presse, where he said he had the impression the Americans were high-tech to their fingertips but with as much brains as King Kong. That kind of approach is dangerous. It is very dangerous to let intellingence be thrust aside by technology. I am not blaming the American people. I respect them just the same. None of us is better than the next person, but we must let diplomacy take precedence over the tools of destruction. I think that is essential.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ferland):: I want to thank the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. The hon. member for Mississauga East.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, the lives of hundreds of Canadian men and women in the Persian Gulf may be snuffed out by the decisions made by this government. Politicians sitting in relative comfort and safety will again decide the fate of the soldiers on the front lines.
Cicero stated with moral authority that one should never cease to advocate for peace, for even peace-unjust as it may be-is better than the most just war. History has taught us that war involves such a train of unexpected and unlikely circumstances that no one can predict its conclusion or its consequences.
The aggression of Saddam Hussein most certainly merits the condemnation that he has drawn from Canada and the international community. We have been told of the atrocities committed against the people of Kuwait but there is no greater atrocity than war itself. Many of the same Kuwaitis whom we hope to free may not even survive their liberation. Iraqi civilians have already died and just hours ago Israeli civilians, who are far removed from the conflict in Kuwait, were struck by Iraqi missiles.
Our Prime Minister has said there was no other way. He could not wait any longer. He could not give peaceful measures any more time. The Prime Minister has told us that Canada must abandon its traditional peacekeeping role and join the assault on Iraq. Unlike the Americans,

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
the Canadian Parliament is not voting on a clear resolution taking our country into war.
For the past five and a half months this government has been creeping closer to war while denying at every step that it was going in this direction. It is the leaders of this government who are waging war, but it is the Canadian people who will suffer, particularly those in the Armed Forces and their families.
The United States Congress debated fully the arguments for war and the arguments for peace. By only a handful of votes, the United States Senate chose to press their nation into battle. Our own government, unfortunately, is not honest enough to debate the real issue at an appropriate and useful time. It was not until the day before the bombs started falling that the Prime Minister allowed debate on his government's decision to go to war. We are here tonight debating whether the UN should have given its permission for war to be waged when we know that war is already well under way.
The ministers of this government never told the Canadian public in a direct and honest way that they were dragging the nation into its first war since Korea. Once again, this government has looked south of the border for instruction. Once again the Canadian public has been bushwhacked.
The Prime Minister has said that the question before the House is a simple one. It may be simple for the government, but for the families of the Canadian men and women who will needlessly die or be maimed this question is not so simple. They will have to pay the real price of this war, not the Prime Minister.
The only noble war is the one that is never fought, that is prevented by leaders whose prime interest is the protection of human lives and who have an absolute commitment to the avoidance of unnecessary conflict. No such commitment has been shown in the Persian Gulf.
The experience in Southeast Asia taught us that, like pawns on a chess board, soldiers will be sacrificed. But the real players will shake hands and move on to the next game.
Barely 17 years ago, U.S. troops pulled out of Vietnam. Nearly 60,000 Americans had been killed and thousands more left maimed, paralysed, or psychologically dysfunctional. When the wounded returned home, they found themselves in veterans' hospitals that can only be described as slums. They faced a public that had already come to realize that the war they fought was immoral and wrong. Many of the same veterans sit in wheelchairs today and remember the role they played in the conflict that left one million Vietnamese dead and a landscape petrified by napalm and years of constant bombardment.
Vietnam was called a noble war, but there is little that is noble in killing hundreds of thousands of desperately poor people, people with few assets and no foreign interests. Today a new generation of soldiers, too young to remember the futility of Vietnam and inspired by Rambo and Schwartzneggar, are being sent to the new killing fields.
American forces are again fighting to restore a division of people imposed by another western nation decades before. Once again the enemy is a population that is overwhelmingly poor, people who will benefit the least from any spoils of war. These are the people who will be shot by American and British soldier, and bombed by allied, perhaps Canadian, planes.
The Prime Minister continues to cite human rights abuses by Iraq as a motivation to commit the greatest abuse of human rights possible, the atrocity of war. The Prime Minister allowed Canada to import $250,000 of oil each day before August 2, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had used chemicals weapons against his own civilian population.
It is hypocritical for this government now to claim to be overcome by an attack of principle, when events no more horrendous took place in Kuwait. The decision taken by the U.S. to go to war over Kuwait is particularly unfortunate in view of the success that sanctions were having in punishing Iraq.
The problem with sanctions was that there was no guarantee Hussein would be out of Kuwait before the U.S. presidential campaign gets under way next year. All political leaders remember well how Margaret Thatcher used the Falklands war to propel herself to a second electoral victory.
Repeatedly, the Secretary of State for External Affairs asked if there was any evidence that sanctions were working. Surely he knows that the director of the CIA
January 17, 1991

reported in December that continued sanctions would have an increasingly damaging effect on the Iraqi military: the virtual depletion of Iraq's foreign exchange reserves by spring, the shut down of nearly all but energy related and military industries by the summer, a decrease in the Iraqi air forces's ability to fly regular missions after three to six months, and a deterioration of Iraq's ground and air forces after just nine months.
Contrary to what the Prime Minister told us, waiting for sanctions to work could have only made Iraq weaker and poorer, thereby saving Allied lives if military force were ever genuinely necessary. The war option is the most damaging of all possibilities for the region and the allies.
Let us not be fooled about the duration or the human cost of war. So far, 45,000 body bags have been sent to the region. The U.S. military must believe 45,000 could die there. The tragedy is that western culture has glorified war, the leaders who led their nations into battle, and especially those who died in combat. I wish we could attach as much reverence to those who manage to avoid conflict.
Today our nation has seen the results of the first two days of war. The first day, many thought that a U.S. victory would be an easy one. We saw an attack that looked and sounded like a scene from Star Wars. We did not see the carnage on the ground, the 150,000 people who at least one source said, were killed. Now Israel has been hit, once again fearing the use of poison gas against its people and their families. Saudi Arabia has been attacked. Turkey has visions of claiming the oilfields in northern Iraq. Both Syria and Iran are wondering what opportunities a crippled Iraq will offer them. A lasting peace seems less likely than ever.
The government has accepted responsibility for those Canadians killed and those killed by Canadians. For that is all that war involves, killing and being killed. There has never been a good war or a bad peace. Our nation, like a sailor tossed overboard by a captain intoxicated by the glories of war, has no option but to swim to shore, to see the war to its conclusion.
Our brave men and women in the gulf will do our fighting for us and deserve all the respect and assistance we can offer.
Government Orders


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of comments and possibly a question. I take exception to a couple of things said by the hon. member and would like to clear the record.
At the beginning of her speech, the hon. member mentioned that the decision by the Canadian government to become involved in war would cost hundreds of thousands of lives. I just want some clarification on that, because I think the member knows full well that it was a collective action taken by the United Nations and not by Canada alone. In other words, Canada did not make the decision to start a war.
Also, I would like the member to comment on some remarks made by her former leader-in fact the leader under whom she ran under as a candidate in the last election. He dismissed the relationship that the member attempts to make between the Vietnam war and the Persian Gulf War. I want her to comment on the issue because he spoke very well on that and dismissed any connection or parallel between those two wars.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra told us that he dismissed totally the accusation that this is simply a U.S. war and that the U.S. has, in a sense, drawn every other country into it. He dismissed that totally. He told us that it is very much a UN sanctioned war in a sense. It is not a U.S. war, not an American war. He is very, very strong on that. I will quote his speech at page 17133 of Hansard of January 16, 1991:
Nobody pushes the United Nations around, not even the United States. Not one nation, especially not the United States, is able to impose marching orders on that institution.
He goes on to say:
No, this is not an American adventure. It is an United Nations action in collective security, one of the greatest historic developments of our time, certainly in my lifetime-
Perhaps the hon. member could comment on that.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. I believe I said hundreds of Canadian men and women. I note that the member asks me about hundreds of thousands of Canadian men and women who will lose their lives. Whether it is 100 or 100,000 lives, 100 are just as important as hundred of thousands Canadian men and women who might lose their lives. So I think we are quibbling about numbers.

Government Orders
I put an equal value or weight on a hundred lives as I do a on hundreds of thousands of lives. But as I mentioned in my speech, I do not see how the hon. member can say with such certainty the exact number of Canadians lives that will be sacrificed to a war which Canadians were not even aware was creeping up on them.
The hon. member asks me about my difference of opinion with the former leader of the Liberal Party. Obviously the former leader has his opinion and I have mine.
In return, I would like to ask the hon. member if he would be good enough to answer a question about a statement that the defence minister made on November 16, when I understand he was visiting the armed forces in the gulf. He told reporters that Canadians might consider participating in an attack on Iraq even without the sanctions of the UN. I quote: "Our preference is that if force is needed there would be a resolution endorsed by the United Nations, but we have not ruled out Canada's support of force outside the United Nations".
That is quite a cheeky comment to make, I would suggest to the minister.
I would like to ask a second question, if the Speaker would allow me to. What was the big rush to get Canada involved in this war? Where is Canada's national interest? Why did the Prime Minister, in an interview on December 28, say: "We are not getting ready for war," he kept insisting, "we are trying to secure peace. Should that change, we are going to know long in advance".
Subsequently he said: "I will go to the House of Commons and explain it and examine with them certain alternatives for Canada".
What alternatives did the government examine before launching Canada into the war?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker. I would like to reflect upon an interesting observation. I wonder if the member might care to comment on it.
One thing that I have noticed just prior and subsequent to the war being called is that many, students in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap have gathered together and have spoken very strongly with a united voice that
Canada and the nations of the UN, the allied nations, should do whatever they can to find a peaceful resolution to this conflict, to give more time for the economic sanctions to work.
I just want to reflect on a letter that was written to me. Unfortunately it was the very day that the war was called that it arrived. It says: "Your constituents in the Okanagan-Shuswap gathered at the cenotaph in Salmon Arm on Wednesday in a silent prayer for peace. We would like you to send the attached message to the Government of Canada". It says: "A message to the Government of Canada via our MP Lyle MacWilliam: Hold off on military action. War as a solution is unacceptable to us. Give us sanctions, negotiations, and give peace a chance".
These are many residents in the Okanagan-Shuswap area. There has been a number of petitions from high schools throughout my area. Obviously the students, the young people in Canada, are becoming very concerned about the whole aspect of Canada's involvement in military action. I view it as a very positive sign that our young people are becoming involved and interested in these affairs and speaking out with a very strong voice. They are saying: "give peace a chance, utilize whatever efforts you can to find peaceful resolutions before exercising that final tragic option". I wonder if the member is finding the same thing in her constituency and if she has any comments she would like to make.


Albina Guarnieri: I thank the hon. member for his question and his commentary. I think it is quite safe to say that we are kindred souls in this regard.
During the Christmas holidays I had the occasion to visit many of the schools in my riding. The number one topic was the Persian Gulf and the number one concern among the young ones was conscription. All of them, unequivocally, even at that time said that this government was bent on sending them to war. They were astute enough to realize that at that early date. Their number one concern was that they feared they would be drafted.
I would very much like to seek the assurance of this House that this government has no such intent on drafting young individuals who have never had explained to them the merits of this war, why we went to war, or what the national interest of this war is. Many of these young ones should be listened to. I also believe that this

government has turned a total deaf ear to what Canadians are thinking.
My office is continuously inundated with calls from people who fear that we have been misguided and have stumbled into a war that we should never have been into in the first place. I can say with great certainly that had we been the government, we would never have found ourselves in this situation to begin with.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I will try to make my speech although I have a severe cold. Still I hope I will be able to deliver all the remarks I have prepared. I want to join the debate because it has to do with an important issue.
The wide variety of opinions expressed in this debate is testimony to the democratic character of our parliamentary system where each of us is a living link. In these democratic precincts I want to make my contribution as a member, as a Canadian from Quebec. I am proud of the reputation our country has gained the world over as peacekeeper. Canada did achieve notable success by participating in the United Nations peacekeeping operations and peacefully settling various conflicts through diplomatic channels. This important factor must be kept in mind during the debate.
Unfortunately, diplomacy has been silenced and what we hear now is the roar of cannons or, more properly, missiles. Being Jewish, I will not hide the fact that the threats hanging over Israel tonight, right now if the news is correct, are present in my mind.

As a Jew, I have a deep and abiding concern for the welfare of Israel. Of course, this does not make me oblivious to the aspirations of others. I consider myself first and foremost a citizen of the world. Rabbi Harry Stern of Temple Emmanuel in Montreal used to say that there is only one race, the human race. I also know that Israelis yearn for peace with their Arab neighbours and with the Palestinians.
After hearing of last night's attack on Israel, my first thoughts were for friends in Israel. I hoped that they and other Israelis had not been hurt. We now know, of course, that innocent civilians died and our hearts go out
Government Orders
to them and their families. We hope that Israel and Israelis will be spared further attacks.
This unprovoked aggression reminds us of the tremendous price Israel pays simply to exist. I am sure that everyone in this House supports Israel's absolute right to defend itself.
The Liberal Party opposed going to war on January 15.
That does not mean that we would always oppose war. Our leader said clearly in his speech to this House that we opposed going to war at that time. We believed that sanctions ought to be given more time.
I am not a pacifist. It cannot be said that the Liberal Party is pacifist in the sense that we believe that it is possible to 'do away with war under all circumstances. Unfortunately, that is probably not something that the human condition will ever attain.
Our position does not mean that we are opposed to the collective security provisions of the UN Charter. It does not mean either that, as some have suggested in this House, we are prepared to condone Saddam Hussein's aggression. Quite the contrary. We supported a wide variety of measures to make him pay for his aggression. The question is when to use the ultimate recourse of war, when to exercise the security provisions of the charter.
Last week, 47 members of the United States Senate and a good number of congressmen-I forget the exact number-voted against the use of force at that time. Our position is no different from those members of the U.S. Congress. War, the ultimate recourse, should only be used after carefully weighing a whole host of competing factors. Were the conditions right on January 15 or 16? Historians and political scientists will debate this question for years.
In debate in this House, we have heard arguments on both sides of the issue. On the one hand, the Prime Minister, when he spoke in the House, argued that with time and wealth Saddam Hussein would strengthen his arsenal. While sanctions had affected Iraq's exports and living conditions, Saddam would ensure that his armed forces received top priority. I do not think anybody in this House doubts that.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
The Prime Minister also mentioned that Saddam Hussein had demonstrated limitless tolerance for the suffering of his people and there was no evidence that sanctions had caused a groundswell of discontent.
On the other side of the argument, the leader of my party observed that in September and October, President Bush, Secretary of State Baker and the Director of the CIA, Mr. William Webster, had all said that sanctions were working. I am sure that we have heard these figures many times in this debate. More than 90 per cent of Iraq's imports and 97 per cent of its exports had been stopped. Industrial production had declined by 40 per cent. The flow of spare parts and military supplies from the Soviet Union and France had stopped. My leader said that the United Nations Security Council should report on the effectiveness of sanctions. He argued that the use of force should be the last resort after all other avenues had been completely exhausted, sanctions and diplomacy included.
To try to gain some perspective on these questions, I spoke some weeks ago to a reputed national affairs analyst. She told me that she was not optimistic that sanctions would work within three or four years. Sanctions are premised on the assumption that the target population will rise up and overthrow its leader. Iraq was an ideal case from an economic standpoint, but perhaps the worst case in the sense that it has a ruthless leader with a powerful security apparatus.
Further, Saddam Hussein has shown his ability to build down his economy or, in other words, to reduce the standard of living of Iraqis. That was done during the eight or nine year war with Iran.
This analyst believed that there were really only two choices: one was to leave Saddam Hussein in Kuwait for three or four years; the other was the option that we are faced with now, namely war. These are both terrible choices.
The best thing you can say about leaving Saddam Hussein in Kuwait is that the status quo would have been preserved. In the view of the analyst I spoke to, Hussein would have had difficulty building his military capability. He would not have had great capacity to do further damage in the region.
Then there is the option of war.
No one can say where war may lead, how long it will last, how many lives will be lost or how many countries will be involved. Apart from the human costs, many agree that the political consequences will be equally terrible. War will bring with it political destabilization. Many questions must be asked about the peace that will follow. Here are just a couple: Will Iraq survive as an independent country or will it be divided between Syria and Iran? Will war lead to a Shiite government?
We have not begun to address these and countless other questions.
What I am saying is that war will bring with it human devastation and political consequences that may be worse than a prolonged occupation of Kuwait would have brought. That is, as I said earlier, a terrible conclusion to come to when we think of the devastation of Kuwait and its people. But again, we are weighing two terrible choices.
I would ask, had the opposite case been made, was war necessary to avoid even greater death and destruction that will result from war? Was Saddam Hussein in a position to do further damage?
With Operation Desert Shield, with several hundred thousand allied troops in Saudi Arabia, would Saddam Hussein have risked attacking Saudi Arabia or any other neighbour?
The argument has been made that war was necessary to stop Saddam Hussein from going nuclear. If we had evidence that Iraq was close to possessing a deliverable nuclear weapon, my view and that of our party would clearly have been different.
In November, The New York Times published a report in which it cited intelligence estimates that Iraq would require two to ten years to develop a nuclear arsenal. In an editorial, The New York Times offered the opinion that the Iraqi nuclear threat did not itself justify a military strike at this time. The editorial continued:
The only long-term solution, short of unending military occupation, must be diplomatic. In the final resolution of the gulf crisis, the nuclear issue must be high on the agenda. All shipments of bomb-making material to Iraq should be embargoed, international inspections should become far more aggressive, and Iraq should be pressed to forgo building facilities that could be rapidly converted to bomb production.
Some may say that this is the view of a newspaper, The New York Times, albeit a fairly authoritative newspaper. It may or may not be right. However, before going to
January 17, 1991

war, I believe that we require persuasive evidence, which I do not believe was presented to this Parliament, to the U.S. Congress or to the United Nations.
There is another aspect of the strategy of the last few months that I would like to deal with at this time. It became apparent to me in the weeks leading up to January 15 that somewhat paradoxically the prospect of war gave undeserved importance to Saddam Hussein. Because we were all so fearful of the consequences of war, some were prepared to offer him all kinds of things in order to avoid a war.
If the UN had not set a deadline of January 15, if we were prepared to see sanctions through, then Saddam Hussein could have been ignored. There would have been no question of linkage to other matters. Saddam Hussein is a pariah. Without the threat of war, he would have played no part in international affairs until he began to conduct himself in a civilized fashion.
The events of the last few days in the Soviet Union also remind us that we must bring a sense of perspective to international affairs. While acting against Iraq to ensure that it does not benefit from its brutal aggression, we have to weigh this situation. I am not of course suggesting that what is happening in the Soviet Union is any parallel to what happened in Iraq, but there are many other incidents, many other tragedies that have taken place in the world in recent years which have to be kept in perspective.
Another point I would like to make is that no country is closer to the United States than Canada. I would suggest therefore that we not only owe the United States our friendship, but we owe it our judgment. The United States makes mistakes.
Prior to August 2 the United States, through its ambassador to Iraq, conducted itself in a rather astonishing fashion. I am referring to a discussion that took place between April Glaspie, the American ambassador to Iraq, and Saddam Hussein on July 25, just six or seven or eight days prior to the invasion of Kuwait.
After Saddam Hussein explained his dispute with Kuwait to the American ambassador, Ambassador Glaspie responded: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait in the late
Government Orders
1960s. 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."
The United States sent the wrong signal to Saddam Hussein, practically inviting him to go ahead and invade Kuwait. Since August 2, the world has paid dearly for this terrible mistake. Indeed, if we look at the history of American policy in that region over a period of the past 10 years there was a review on one of the American networks about a week or so ago, we cannot help but feel that American policy was sorely deficient in many respects, to put it mildly.
The debate that we are having here this evening may sound somewhat academic at this stage. That may be so, but the war will end and it will be necessary to revisit these questions if we wish to build the new world order that everyone is talking about these days.
I referred to the mistake the Americans made just prior to August 2 in their dealings with Saddam Hussein. Let us not forget also that it was the Americans, the French, the West Germans, the Soviets and a number of other nationalities that helped build Saddam Hussein's war machine. We have to avoid repeating that mistake in Iraq and in other countries. We can only pray that the war will end quickly and that loss of life will be kept to a minimum. Our thoughts are with the Canadian men and women serving in the gulf. We wish them Godspeed, Mr. Speaker.
I have heard some members during this debate speak of efforts in their constituencies to bring Muslims, Jews and Christians, people of other religions together. I would hope this war will lead to more of these efforts and that civilized, good relationships will prevail among all Canadians. If this war proves anything, it is that we have a lot of bridge building to do.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, I did appreciate the comments of my colleague. However I wish he would tell me whether he agrees with the position of his party when he talks about sanctions. Some of the sanctions that should be or should have been applied instead of declaring war would include, among other things advocated by his party, cutting off the Iraqi's water supply at dam sites located more to the north in Turkey or again cutting off the food supply line, a tactic which in either case would have victimized the civilian

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
population, not the military. As a Canadian, does he believe that this position would be acceptable to the people of this country?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to know whether I agree with the position of our party concerning the economic sanctions. These sanctions did not originate from my party, of course. They were imposed through a number of United Nations resolutions. These measures were endorsed by all UN member countries, certainly by those that had approved the sanctions, those that sat on the Security Council. Perhaps the economic sanctions could have been made stiffer.
With respect to the specific issue raised by my colleague, as I said a moment ago in my remarks, the purpose of economic sanctions is to convince people that the dictator must be overthrown.
By imposing still harsher economic sanctions, it might have been possible to prompt the Iraqis to get rid of Saddam Hussein but, as I pointed out in my remarks the analyst to whom I spoke was not overly enthusiastic because Saddam Hussein rules his people with such an iron fist that they would have a hard time getting rid of him. Unless I am mistaken, the economic sanctions did leave room for providing Iraq with medical supplies. I am not an expert in such matters but I think that basically the hon. member wanted to know whether I endorsed the economic sanctions, and the answer is yes indeed.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, on the question of sanctions, it is ironic that the Conservative member would talk about cutting off the Tigris and the Euphrates River and the water supply to Iraq, and, indeed the food supply as sanctions. What the Conservative Party has chosen is a different form of sanctions.
The world is sanctioning Iraq. The Conservative Party would rather sanction the Iraqi people-the poor and the children of Iraq-out of a B-52 bomber with tens of thousands of bombs falling on civilian areas. That is
indeed a sanction, a very strict sanction, and there is a suggestion by the Conservatives that ever-tightening economic sanctions are not appropriate.
A lot of my friends at CFB Comox, who have thought this out very carefully, do not want to be involved in this. They do not want to be killing Arabs because of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Conservative Party. That is not why they joined the Armed Forces.
Clearly, the sanctions that the Conservatives want are dropping bombs out of a B-52 on women, children, and civilians in Iraq. The hon. member's attempt to discredit the Liberal member and the Liberal Party on the basis of ever-increasing economic sanctions is unbelievably callous. I would urge that member, rather than attempting to take that tact, to contact the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs and telling them to stop the war.


Marc Ferland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I think my colleague from North Island-Powell River is mistaken. Apparently he is trying to tack the Liberal Party positions on me. Mr. Speaker, I for one do not consider that cutting off water and food supplies can properly be described as being economic sanctions.


Raymond John Skelly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it is an ironic manner of obtaining the floor.
I certainly do not have any problem with offering the Iraqis a choice with economic sanctions, be they military equipment and supplies or materials to run their society, and then gradually increasing sanctions to things like water and food supplies. The Conservatives have-


Gregory Francis Thompson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the gentleman speaking on debate or in reply to questions and comments of the previous speaker? My point is simply this. He has rattled on in a most ridiculous way and has thrown accusations all around the place and I just think at this time-
January 17, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry to interrupt you, but you know as well as I do that this is not a point of order, but rather a matter of opinion. Hon. members may have different views. We are at the questions and comments stage, and the hon. member is expressing a view which can be argued by other members. Right now he may indeed state his opinion, then the previous speaker might respond.
Again I recognize the hon. member for North Island- Powell River for a brief comment.


Raymond John Skelly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the two Liberal members who have spoken have made very thoughtful speeches. I would think the attempt to discredit them a little thoughtless and-


Gregory Francis Thompson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is, again, exaggeration. The members were not trying to discredit members. It was a most thoughtful debate and we understand that. I think that it is totally ridiculous to suggest that.


Raymond John Skelly: This is simply a discussion. The point is that his speech was very thoughtful, as was that of the member for Portneuf.
But one cannot effectively sanction women and children and civilians out of a B-52 bomber, as the Conservatives are endorsing. That is not acceptable.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, again it is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The time for questions or comments is over.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker. I rise this morning to engage in a debate that I never expected I would be participating in. Certainly, it is a debate that I never thought I would see the Parliament of Canada undertake. In fact, until the word came down on Wednesday night that we were in a situation of war and that missiles were actually flying toward Iraq, I never believed it. I never believed that Canada would actually go to war.
I believe that is a position many members of the House had. In the hours following that first announcement, while wandering the halls of Centre Block, I ran into
Government Orders
many members who were dumbfounded, who were awestruck, who could not believe that this had actually happened.
Over the last two days, I have had time to think about it and I have been asking myself what is Canada's role in this regard. Why is Canada at war? Why are we going to war? What justification can there possibly be for that war? I have to come to the conclusion that there is no justification for Canada to be involved in a war at this time.
President George Bush has said,-and the Prime Minister has also acknowledged and indicated-, that economic sanctions simply were not working and we had to go to war. The economic sanctions that were being imposed have been the most comprehensive economic sanctions in the history of the world.
Last week there was a very eloquent debate taking place in the United States in which speaker after speaker, mostly Democrats, rose to point out the evidence that in fact economic sanctions were taking hold and that they were having an effect. There was evidence such as the report from the CIA which said that the war machine of Saddam Hussein was beginning to break down and, if economic sanctions continued for a few more months, they would begin the cannibalization of Saddam Hussein's war machine as the Iraqis would take parts from equipment to put on other equipment to keep it going. This is very sophisticated equipment and, without parts that were not coming in, the machinery would break down. The Gross National Product, as we have heard many times, was being strangled. It was a country that was having severe economic problems. Yet, we have gone to war. What has been the result of that war?
I was listening to a briefing from the Pentagon today as I was watching television. The general who was giving the briefing indicated that the war was going as expected. He said that in the 45.5 hours since they commenced the hostilities, they had conducted over 1,000 sorties per day. They had conducted 2,000 missions in the 45.5-hour period. He indicated that it was like two consecutive D-day operations. On D-day there were air raids of astounding proportions and he said they had two consecutive D-days. Presumably, there will be another one tonight, another one tomorrow night, and for the next few days.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
The American pilots who are interviewed on television coming back from these missions have indicated that they have found virtually no resistance or very little resistance. In fact, they have made their raids and come back. We have heard rumours-unconfirmed, of course-that, besides knocking out strategic points, anywhere from 150,000 to 350,000 Iraqis have been killed, annihilated. They have ceased to exist. That is something that has to hit every Canadian right in the pit the stomach. In 45 hours, we have wiped out perhaps 350,000 people. Mr. Speaker, that is astounding.
What has been Iraq's response? The so-called coalition has lost perhaps eight planes. They are not sure if they have been shot down, if they have run out of gas, or what happened to them, and a few missiles have been lobbed into Israel. Granted, their response of lobbing missiles at Israel is not justified, but the response of Iraq has been extremely minimal compared to the impact that the American coalition has had on Iraq.
It leads me to believe, especially when they say it is going as expected, that in fact members of American intelligence knew what to expect. They knew full well that the Iraqi war machine, such that it is, was not a threat. They knew what the response was going to be. They did not know whether they were going to lose 8,12, or 15 planes, but they knew they were going to have a devastating impact on Iraq. And yet they went ahead.
They went ahead despite the fact that economic sanctions were working. They went ahead despite the fact they knew that they were going to blow the hell out of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.
What was the reason for this? It was not a war intended to solve problems in the Middle East. The resort to war was not the last resort. It was not a war that was necessary to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This is a war that I believe was chosen by George Bush not to get rid of a madman-which certainly Saddam Hussein is-but rather to help George Bush get elected in the next election. Some crass politics, I am afraid to say, that are taking place.
A few years ago there was the situation of Margaret Thatcher who won a political victory as a result of her military victory in the Falkland Islands. George Bush is trying to repeat it here.


An hon. member:: And so is Brian Mulroney.


Rodney Edward Laporte: I am afraid to say that my colleagues are right. The Prime Minister is using the same sort of political belief and the same sort of mentality that George Bush is proceeding with.
Despite the rhetoric that has been taking place, the U.S. has to take responsibility for a lot of the situation that exists in the Middle East right now. The U.S. has to take responsibility for Saddam Hussein. He is in many ways a creature of the United States, much as Noriega was in Panama.
We have heard a lot of talk about an international peace conference for years. To a large extent-not totally, but to a large extent- it is because that peace conference has never taken place. For George Bush to stand up now and say that he has to get rid of this madman, in a self-righteous fashion, to save the world. There is a lot of talk coming out of both sides of his mouth.
What has been the Canadian role in this? We have this 28-nation coalition that exists. Canadians have fourth-largest contingency, behind the British and the French. Of some 500,000 allied troops, the Americans have 450,000. Canada has about 1,700. We have about three World War Il-class ships and 25 planes, and that is our role. The role of Canada in this war effort is minuscule. If the Canadian troops and the Canadian planes are not there, there would be virtually no effect on the outcome of this war. Yet, why are we there? Certainly, we are not going to win the war or lose the war. That is for certain.
If one wants some crass politics-and I am sorry I have to tell my hon. friend opposite this, but this is the only thing that makes sense of why we are in this war- it is that the Prime Minister is getting something out of this. He is getting Canada a seat at the Mexico-U.S. free trade talks. Also, he is at 12 per cent in the polls and he is hoping to take advantage of the Margaret Thatcher-Falklands episode and gain some political points. He has nothing to lose. My friends opposite have nothing to lose at 12 per cent in the polls. They are trying to wrap themselves in the Canadian flag in order to gain something out of this.
January 17, 1991

What makes me very sad is that, although the Prime Minister has not resorted to the rhetoric of George Bush, where George Bush is going to go "kick ass", he has come very close. He is now talking of escalation. Last night, after the attack on Israel, the Prime Minister commented that perhaps Canada will have to escalate its forces.
If the rumours of sending 5,000 troops are true, how is that going to help the situation? They are certainly not going to knock out the Scud missiles going into Israel. They certainly are not going to have any effect in knocking out Saddam Hussein. It can only be for political advantage. When a government, a Prime Minister, or a President uses political advantage and uses crass politics and plays politics with the lives of human beings, that is about as low as one can go in politics.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Rodney Edward Laporte: I am afraid that that is where this government has dropped to.
The New Democrats have been very clear on this situation. Our troops should not be there. They should have pulled out at the first indication that George Bush was going to enter into war. And make no mistake, it is not a United Nations war. It is an American war under the guise of the United Nations. It is not a coalition. Some people like the term "allies" because it brings up patriotic feelings. It is not an ally. It is an American-led attack with a few extra people along. That is what this war is. Let's make no mistake about it.
At the first word of any military action by George Bush, the New Democrats would have advised Mr. Bush that at the first bullet fired Canadian troops are pulling out of the region. We agreed with the economic sanctions and we are willing to take part in that. We think that Saddam Hussein has to be removed, but not through blowing the hell out of Iraqis. At the first indication of any shot, we would have indicated to George Bush that we are out of the region.
We should be taking a different role. We should be there as peacekeepers.
After the bombs stop, there is going to be a tremendous need for the reconstruction of people's lives in that region. Of the 350,000 people-or whatever the figure
Government Orders
might be-some are soldiers, but many are families. They are children, women, men, and families just trying to survive in an area where, through no fault of their own, the world gone mad.
Canadians should be there to help in reconstruction. We should be taking our traditional role. There will be buildings collapsing after the bombs stop falling. There will be contaminated water. There will be bombs that hit the ground and did not explode blowing up. There are going to be all sorts of ongoing problems. There will be people who have been maimed for life through losing arms and legs and their sight.
Canadians should be taking a traditional role of peacekeeper. We should be willing to that. We should be sending in engineers and medical teams and have them ready to take on the role that Canada can best do.
We have no business being in this war. We will have no effect on the final outcome of the war. We can play a role as peacekeepers. We have destroyed our reputation as peacekeepers by taking part in this war and for that I am personally truly sorry.
Before I finish, I want to say that although we did not support it, the reality is that there are Canadian troops in the gulf. My thoughts go out to those troops and their loved ones. I know that all of us hope that those people come home. We certainly hope that there will be no more Canadian personnel sent over to the region.
I want to close by saying that when historians write their accounts years from now they are going to conclude that this war was a grievous error. When they look at Canada's role in it, I believe that it will be seen as a very large blemish in the history of our nation.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I find that the member's comments were certainly laced with cynicism and repugnant at the very best. I find that totally unacceptable at this hour of the morning. I think that he could find something a little more positive to talk about. He mentioned everything from the conspiracy theory to whatever. I am not sure about what he has been dreaming in the last couple of evenings, but I do not think it offered a whole lot to this debate.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the hon. member intends to keep disrupting the House with partisan comments. Would it be possible for you to ask him if this is his intention for the evening. Is that his assignment for the evening?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. It is time for questions or comments. The hon. member has the right to express his perception.
I again recognize the hon. member for Carleton- Charlotte.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, one of the points that I wanted to make-


Raymond John Skelly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said you believed that the House would give him the right to expound on his perceptions, and I am asking if it is possible to put that to a vote of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I do not understand the comment of the hon. member. It is time for the question or comment period.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I know it is quite an ordeal putting up with some of these characters at this time in the morning.
One thing that I would like to point out to the hon. member, in all fairness, is that our Prime Minister just a matter of a few days ago wrote to the Secretary-General of the UN, Perez de Cuellar. He outlined some of the things that he would like to see happen based on consultations with many individuals, including some individuals in the House and certainly the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as to what we can do and what we would like to see happen on an international scale when this ordeal in Iraq, this nightmare, is over. I think that is a very positive contribution.
I hope that the hon. member can tone down the flavour of his comments and just reflect very seriously on the positive role that Canada can play when this thing is over.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I know he is very sincere.
I think one issue Canada is really going to have to look at is what affect the war is going to have on the Middle East. The Middle East is a very volatile area at the best
of times and has been for many decades. The real danger that is happening now with this war is the possibility of escalation. If it does happen, we could have a catastrophe even worse than we have now.
I am speaking sincerely, but I cannot help being cynical because, if the government were sincere with diplomacy and really had the concerns of the world community at heart, it would not have supported this war. I do not know of any earthly reason, other than crass politics, why we would send over three ships and 25 planes, with a force of some 500,000 and hundreds of other planes, into that area. If there is a concern for diplomacy, I cannot understand why the government would not have taken other actions.
It is fine for the government to write letters. It is fine for the Prime Minister, but the actions of the government have not seemed to bear out its desire for real diplomatic action as opposed to some other crass politics that exist. I hope the hon. member is correct that the government's intentions are truly honourable. I have my doubts about that.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. In light of the comments from the government side of the House, it seems to me that many of us have been waiting for many months for any positive contribution from the government to the resolution of this crisis and to hear the traditional voice of Canada for peace and rational solutions.
I find what the government member has just said rather ironic. I would appreciate the hon. member's comments on it, when even now the Secretary-General of the United Nations is having to come to Canada to ask us what contribution we will make to reconstruction after the damage we will have wrought over the next days, weeks, or months, hopefully not years. What comment would he have on the total absence of a positive voice from Canada up until now?


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. I do believe that the hon. member opposite is sincere in his belief. I just think that unfortunately he is misguided, because it is very hard to effect diplomacy out of the guns of a CF-18 fighter. The diplomacy that the government is pursuing is going to cause potentially untold problems in the Middle East.
January 17, 1991

There has been a lack of leadership from the government. It is clear in many areas. It is clear that the diplomacy that the government has attempted to portray is non-existent. There is some verbalization from the government, but the government's actions have not demonstrated its words. The type of diplomacy that it has used is CF-18 diplomacy. That is not the kind of diplomacy that is good for the Middle East. It is not good for this country and it is not good for the world.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, when I turned on my television in the early hours of Wednesday evening and saw that my world was at war and realized that very soon my country would be at war, I was filled with a sense of despair. I really could not believe that at this time in our history, as what we call civilized people, we still thought that the way to solve world problems was to bomb, to destroy, and to kill.
I had to phone my children one by one to say: "I am sorry. I am sorry we have failed. We have failed all of you and there is nothing I can do about it."
Like all their generation, my children are wonderful young people. They are healers, they are builders, they are innovators, raised and educated to live in a world that values healing and building and using the mind to solve problems. They grew up believing that their country, as perhaps no other, stood for a new era, an era when the resolution of human conflict would be achieved to the greatest extent possible by the application of human ingenuity, determination, and compassion.
I do not know which I consider the greatest tragedy: that Canadian men and women and those of other nations with all the potential they hold are in danger of dying far from home, or that they are being called upon to kill others. Either is a tragedy. But they have been ordered to do so not by a vote of this Parliament, but by fiat, by a handful of men and women who sit safely here in Ottawa and put the lives of others at risk.
Our thoughts and our prayers are with them. I say to each and every one of them the Irish prayer: "May God hold you in the palm of his hand", and may you return safely to the family and friends you left behind. We admire and respect you and know you will give the
Government Orders
utmost in skills and talent to the difficult job you have been assigned.
I pray too for the men and women of Israel and for the children who faced the last two nights and will face the nights to come with fear. We hear tonight that five more bombs have been dropped on Tel Aviv with even more destruction and even more fear. I express my deepest admiration for the handful of Israeli leaders who have resisted the natural urge to retaliate for the damage and devastation being done to their people. Instead of reacting with weapons, they have reacted with restraint, with courage and with wisdom. I agonize for those in the Jewish community in Canada who fear for their loved ones and their friends.
While I feel despair and a sense of tragedy, I also feel utter disdain for this government which has felt that the potential for destruction and death it was prepared to unleash was so inconsequential that the right of Canadians to speak out on this crucial situation through their elected members in Parliament could be ignored and shunted aside. As the world moved inexorably toward a war deadline, our Prime Minister silenced my right and the right of all members of this House to speak on behalf of those who sent us here. Barely 12 hours before the clock struck midnight on Tuesday, we were allowed to come back to do what it is our sworn and sacred duty to do.
What could be more crucial than to speak for our constituents on the issue of war and peace? Yet the Prime Minister waited until it was too late for more than a handful of us to speak before that horrible deadline. Why? Why did he wait? Why did he delay? Why did he deny the voice of Canadians when democratic assemblies around the world were meeting and debating?
The train of events is clear. He waited for the American Congress to meet. He waited for the American Congress to have its debate. He waited for the American Congress to hand the American President his mandate for war and he waited while the emissary from the American President came and got him on side. He waited until after the commitment of Canadian lives had been made to war before he came to this Parliament.
Parliament was locked out while he waited and the voices of Canadians were not heard. Only when the decision was already made and communicated to the United States were the voices of Canadians through

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
their elected members of Parliament allowed to be heard.
Even then the Prime Minister would not let this House debate the real issue. In his contempt for Parliament, he refused to put his intentions clearly before House. He refused to say that the question before the country is: Shall Canada go to war? In the aftermath, who can doubt that was and is the question? He continued to dissemble, to divert, to duck, to dodge and to deceive with some vague, abstract pretension that we were somehow, in principle, endorsing the United Nations. It was left to the Official Opposition to put the question squarely before Canadians, to state clearly our belief that Canada should do everything possible to enforce the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait by economic sanctions, that if hostilities broke out in the Middle East, our troops should be brought home and Canada should prepare for its role as peacemaker and peacekeeper.
We believed and we still believe that the time had not yet arrived when war was the only possible means to force Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
Even now, with bombs flying and people dying, with the lives of Canadians, Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Israelis, Saudis, Jordanians and those of numerous other nations at stake, the government refuses to be honest about its purpose.
On Thursday at noon, defence department officials provided us with a briefing. They were asked specifically what mission was the base for the strategic and tactical decisions they were participating in. Was it to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, or was it to destroy the war machinery of Iraq?
We were told by those responsible for Canada's war effort that the mission was in line with the United Nations' resolution to get Hussein out of Kuwait. And yet this afternoon the Prime Minister said in this House that "We are engaged in a campaign to make sure that his, (Hussein')s, war machine can never again be used". And then tonight again, on radio, I hear the Minister of National Defence saying in response to the same question, that our mission is to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. What is the honest story for the people of
Canada? Is it not time we heard it? The Prime Minister, should tell Canadians the truth.
Tonight I heard the spokesperson for the Soviet Union regretting that missiles made in the U.S.S.R were used against Israel last night. The missiles may have been stamped "Made in the U.S.S.R.", but what is the country of origin of the droplets of nerve gas that may strangle the children? What is the country of origin of the biological warfare that the Secretary of State for External Affairs says may be unleashed against allied forces and innocent civilians?
From whence come the nuclear technology and the components of nuclear bombs that threaten the chain reaction that can destroy the world for human habitation? Who are the nations that for over a decade have armed the madmen of the world? Who are the governments that have based their economies on weapons and technologies of destruction and death, where every year their economies prosper on a new toy and markets have to be found for last year's models? Where are the nations who put international trade above the safety of the world and refuse to control the movement of arms?
Who are the merchants of death who do not care where their products end up as long as their dividends are up, who put profits above the sanctity of human life?
Let there be no mistake, about my intentions. The men and women who stretch the frontiers of science and technology deserve nothing but our greatest admiration. Their talent and their creativity are essential to the maintenance of mutual deterrence and the delicate balance that can preserve peace in our world. Their contribution to the advancement of human health and safety is incalculable. They are not the ones who have shirked the responsibility to stop the spread of the products of their labour getting into the hands of those who would use them in the mad pursuit of power. It is others. It is all of us, the lawmakers, who bear the responsibility for killing thousands of blameless bystanders to destroy the monsters we have created and armed.
And at what costs? What risks do we take when we decide not simply to remove Hussein from Kuwait but to obliterate his nuclear production facilities? Whose lives do we jeopardize when we bomb the plants that produce chemical weapons?
January 17, 1991

How do we destroy the capacity to produce deadly biological weapons without releasing untold agents of harm on unsuspecting people who want nothing more than to wake up tomorrow, to toil for a meagre living, to feed and clothe their children, and hope for a better world for the next generation? To what extent has it been in the interests of the superpowers for well over a decade to maintain the tensions in the Middle East, to ignore the plight of Palestinian people without a home, and to refuse to work for the kind of climate in that territory that would lead the nations of that region to be able to sit down and resolve their differences?
Saddam Hussein is a blip in the history of Baghdad. Countries, provinces, states and kingdoms come and go but cities endure. The centres of population for people endure. Baghdad goes back 10,000 years to the dawn of civilization, yet we in our arrogance have assumed the right in our brief stay on this earth to blast it to smithereens.
Does the 24-hour TV docudrama we have witnessed since Wednesday show us any of this reality? Have we seen one dead child? Have we seen one drop of blood? Do we know how many people have died? Have we been allowed to see the reality of this war? No.
What we have seen is sanitized science fiction, Star Trek with bright lights flashing off into the universe. The Enterprise goes off into the darkness, sparkling explosions fill the sky, with patterns of lights pretty as the stars, but obscuring the reality of thousands of living beings, breathing in a living city. People quiver in fear. The flight deck of the Enterprise is now the CNN newsroom where people risk their lives to satisfy our insatiable armchair curiosity to catch one more siren or the colours of one more blast out the window.
It has be?n said that Canada has lost its innocence. I know I have lost some of mine this week. In my newly honed cynicism I have listened to the Secretary of State for External Affairs admit that the cordon of sanctions is more like a sieve, with the resources of oppression continuing to pour through to Saddam Hussein. I ask myself: how far the potential for war in their hands since November has weakened the determination and the organization of the United States and its allies to tighten
Government Orders
the cord of sanctions, to pull the strings so tight that Saddam Hussein would strangle to death?
I have listened to the excuse that the embargo wreaks hardships on the Iraqui and Kuwaiti people but not on the military. I ask myself: What greater hardship there could be than being dead tomorrow morning? I ask myself: How many wars do we need to end wars? We say it with every war we have.
I watched and listened to the verbiage about the United Nations and I ask myself: Why Canada's commitment to enforce the embargo and our commitment of forces was made to the U.S. weeks before the UN announced an embargo? Why did the Prime Minister's announcement of CF-18s going to the gulf follow within hours on the heels of the announcement by a senior American air force officer that they would destroy Baghdad with bombs? Why is it not the United Nations which has made the crucial determination that sanctions could not work and that the time had come for force?
I have listened in vain for months for one single independent Canadian position, for one single Canadian initiative to reach a peaceful solution. I have listened for Canada to call for the final decision to be made not in Washington but in New York by the United Nations, for this action against Hussein to be under the clear and unequivocal direction of the Security Council of the United Nations. I have listened for the voice of Canada to be the voice of strength, restraint and peaceful resolution. I have not once heard anything but the echo of President Bush.
We have lost more than our innocence. We have lost our stature and the respect the world has had for us as peacemakers and peacekeepers. The world has lost an independent honest broker for sanity and a better way for the future.
This week has been a betrayal of the new hope for the next century which we all felt at the beginning of the last year. It has been a betrayal of the gains made for democracy and freedom by those brave individuals who stood up to oppression by the tens of thousands in eastern Europe, many of them at the risk of and at the loss of their lives. It has been a betrayal of the hope we all had that the billions of dollars that had been going into the weapons of destruction could now be diverted to saving children, saving our environment, building a better world. Yet here we are again, with one nation

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
spending half a billion dollars a day killing, maiming, destroying, not building.
I make no apology tonight for choosing passion over dispassionate analysis. It is a time for passion. It is a time for reason when the lives of thousands are at stake. The possibility of a world without conflict and oppression deserves our passion.
I make no apology for saying the voices of women are needed in our legislatures. I make no apology for saying it is time to put away the centuries of thinking that reason only defines us as human beings when we know that reason and passion make us human. I make no apology for reporting to this House that when the Gallup poll recorded that 59 per cent of Canadians were against war, by a ratio of nearly two to one, 59 per cent were women rather than men.
I make no apology for personalizing the horrendous situation that faces Canada and the world, for saying that what I want for my own children I owe to every child of the world, the right to grow up safe, healthy, secure and free, to develop their talents and contribute to a better world in the third millennium. We have done irreparable damage to that right this week.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to congratulate the previous speaker on a magnificent speech. In my observations of the debate in this House, some of the finest speeches that have been made in favour of peace, and the endurance of human values, have been made by women. It certainly speaks very strongly for more women legislators in this place.
I have just a couple of comments. It is apparent to me that this House cannot resolve the desire of the majority of Canadians to find a peaceful route for Canadian involvement in this issue. I am just wondering whether it is not time for the women in this House to join together and to set a different course. Although it is only one drop of water, it tends to gather speed and greater mass as time goes by. There is an extremely strong desire in this country for peace. The majority of people do not want us there killing Iraqis. They see a much more positive and constructive role.
The first question I would put to the hon. member is this. Does she see that the government is fixed and all of its members cannot leave the direction the Prime
Minister has established? Maybe it is time for the women in the opposition to gather together and with a unified voice put together the individual voices that they have so strongly put before this House and see if they cannot gather more and more people in the cause of peace. Perhaps they could focus on the rest of the legislators here, lead them, gather other citizens behind them and try to overpower what has happened to us on this side of the House.
The second thing is your mention of the creation of madmen. I have been here for more than a decade now and I have heard this side of the House speak constantly against the creation and the use of the madmen in the world by the nation to the south of us. Eighty thousand people have been murdered in El Salvador and they have been murdered by U.S. dollars and U.S. advisers. Nobody ever talks of invading that country. They talk about continuing it. It certainly depends who is killed.
Maybe when this is over and all the preaching about atrocities from the other side of the House is finished, we can reflect this back to them and say: Now what do we do about those? Obviously the United States will never let us see a military overthrow of that.
The third thing the hon. member mentioned that was so effective is: Once this is over, what do we do about the dirty hands of all the nations in this business? I have been here for more than a decade and I have heard this side of the House rail against the West Germans selling chemical plants to manufacture nerve case, about the French selling reactors from which fissionable material is extracted to build nuclear weapons. It is time that we reflected this back to the government and say that many nations, including our own, have, very dirty hands in selling arms and selling the wherewithal to kill people.
I thought that was a tremendous speech. I certainly think that those three items show the capacity of the opposition to come together. We have been motivated in our desire to see Canada move in a peaceful direction. Maybe the women on this side of the House can begin the process of pulling us together and pulling the rest of the people together to achieve what she has articulated. She mentioned dirty hands. Our hands are as dirty as those of other nations in building this monster and
January 17, 1991

others. Let us get rid of the El Salvadors and the insanity that has gone there.


Marlene Catterall: The members questions and comments would require another 20 minutes to answer, but I will not impose on the House. I think he cannot beg off that easily. He cannot leave it to the handful of us in this House who happen to have the power to create life and therefore perhaps value it more highly. It is time for the men in this House to start saying that the fate of the world matters to them and the fate of the world's children and the fate of every single human being on this earth matters to them, more than money and more than power and more than property.
That is what we need, for you to start listening to us. We are doing our bit to change the values on which we make decisions, but frankly I do not have a lot hope for my country when I see it under this government slipping more and more into a value system based on might and power. Those who have will have more. Those who haven't will have less. Those who are strong will survive and thrive at the expense of those who are weak, and the weakest of all are our children.
I do not have a lot of hope when I see resources being taken from those who most need to be heard in our democratic society. I do not have a lot of hope when there is not enough money to clean up our rivers and lakes, but there is enough money overnight to destroy. I do think that Canada has lost immeasurably in this situation and in the last few years in our ability to be seen to be forging a different way for the world, to be turning our technological and communications expertise into productive and positive environmental technologies, which by the way are just as economically profitable as destructive technologies. I do see us as having lost a great deal of ability to contribute positively and independently in this world and I regret it.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, thank you for doing me the kindness of allowing me to briefly to echo the words of the hon. member from Vancouver. My only regret is that it is so late. It is now two o'clock Saturday morning, and we have been debating since ten o'clock Friday morning. Personally, never in my life will I regret not leaving this House earlier, because the speeches are getting better by the hour.
Government Orders
What an incredible collection of well thought out, informative and non partisan pieces of work. I did not know what the hon. member was going to say at this time, nor how she would vote. This is what true debate is all about.

It is a true House of Commons debate. It is not to be told, bang, one side will vote this way because all of the other side will vote the other way so argument is totally irrelevant. I regret there are not more people here. I am not talking about the people in this House because, by tradition, I cannot mention how many people there are, but it is regrettable. The importance of the speech and the argument put forward by the hon. member for Ottawa West is something to reflect upon. I would hope the debate will not end. Members may say, "how come the debate is not finished" and "who spoke", and then they will read the comments. In any case, I will make sure in my own speech that her comments will not be forgotten.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first speech since my return to the House of Commons from the recent by-election in York North. I never believed, however, that upon my return to the House of Commons I would be debating, in my first speech, war, indeed Canada at war.
Throughout that period I always held a deep belief and faith that governments throughout the world, including Canada, would be able to reach a peaceful settlement to the serious gulf crisis, a crisis that has shocked, saddened and profoundly affected Canadians. I continued to believe that we, as a democratic nation, could, through principled diplomacy and through the pursuit of every possible avenue, arrive at a resolution to this international crisis.
This morning it is obvious that my dreams as a young Canadian for a peaceful resolution to the crisis have been shattered. War measures have taken precedence over a peaceful resolution. Canada is at war in the Persian Gulf. This is a serious time and a serious issue with serious repercussions and unimaginable implications for international peace, order and security.
Like all Canadians, I condemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and its illegal annexation. I believed it was wrong, unjustified and completely contradicted the emerging

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
new spirit of co-operation among the nations of the world.
I believe that the imposition of mandatory economic sanctions against Iraq, if given more time, might have been the peaceful resolution to the crisis. As a parliamentarian, I would have liked to have participated, to have been given the opportunity to participate and hear the highest forum of the land on this very important issue, and to have participated in the debate long before the present reality of war. I think that our contribution in that case might have been more meaningful.
This morning, as I speak, however, I realize that the hypothetical questions of the past do not address the reality of the present. The post-mortem of the war may answer some of these questions.
What is important tonight is to come to grips with our role in the gulf as young Canadian men and women offer their lives for democratic principles that have been the cornerstone of Canada's involvement in international affairs. We must offer our unequivocal support to them, as they, through their efforts, must achieve the goal shared by every one of us in this House, and indeed everyone across this nation to bring peace and order to the Middle East and to the world.
I can perhaps spend hours describing the failures of this government in dealing with this crisis, but I think that perhaps we can underline the most basic evidence of their failure and that is the fact that we are at war.
War is failure. The political leadership of this nation, like many others, has failed to arrive at a peaceful resolution. From this morning on we will be judged on how we move toward the attainment of peace. I might suggest that this morning in the House of Commons we meet at a crossroads, not a point of arrival but a point of departure. Where do we go from here?
I would like to take this opportunity to call upon this government, all members of Parliament and all governments throughout the world to move quickly in seeking the ultimate goal of peace. We must actively pursue peace talks. Peace talks must replace bullets and bombs. We cannot afford to lose human lives because of our
inability as political leaders to find a solution. We are elected to seek solutions and we must find them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member spoke for only five minutes; I understand that he will split his time with another colleague.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Yes, that is correct, the member for Hamilton Mountain.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, all my life I have admired people who, at all political levels, have served their fellow Canadians. I have always had a very special attachment to the House of Commons and the democratic process.
Two years ago I was privileged to be elected to this House by the citizens of Hamilton Mountain. I have dedicated all my time and energies since then to serving them and I have enjoyed every minute of it. Every time I have addressed this House, I have felt proud. I never expected that circumstances would be such that I could not say it is a pleasure to participate in this debate, but this is not the case today.
Indeed, it is not with pleasure but with a broken heart that I rise to talk not about peace, but about war. Up to the very last moment I had hoped that our call for peace and patience would be heard, but this government chose not to listen.
I have always felt that the responsibility of a political leader is to solve problems, to negotiate solutions, to work out compromises. We have to recognize today that we have failed in these responsibilities.
Canada has had an extensive and honourable history of working toward peace on the international stage. The role that this government has orchestrated for Canada in the events taking shape in the Middle East over the last months deeply compromises this tradition. Rather than providing a much needed voice of reason and support for negotiations, this government has abdicated the Canadian tradition of peacemaking to follow the path of violence.
To what end? Will the world be a better place? Is this region of the world going to be more democratic, more peaceful?
There are no winners in war, only losers. War is not a solution to human conflict, but a stark example of human failure. I strongly feel that the Canadian government
January 17, 1991

should have given sanctions more time to work. As a Canadian, I deeply regret that we have abandoned the peaceful and proud legacy of Lester B. Pearson.
The scale of human suffering that will result from this confrontation is horrible to contemplate. We have not seen any of it yet, but soon the horrors of war will be on our television for everyone to see. Analysts in the United States were speculating today that there might already be thousands of deaths after only 50 hours of war. Let us hope that they are wrong.
As I anxiously watch the events unfolding in the Persian Gulf, the faces of Canadian servicemen and women keep flashing through my mind. We hear politicians and military advisers discussing the grand strategies involved in Operation Desert Storm, as they call it. We must remember that the bottom line in war is always human suffering.
Political choices have been made. They are not mine. However, I strongly support the courageous efforts of our servicemen and women and I pray for their safe return from the Persian Gulf. For those with loved ones in the gulf, my thoughts are with you, as we hope for a quick return to peace in the region.
I also hope for the safety of those residing in the gulf region who have found themselves caught in the middle of this conflict.
I want to repeat that it was with a sad heart that I saw diplomacy and negotiations give way to bullets and bombs. With the end of the cold war, I had hoped that we would find peaceful solutions to the world problems. I truly hope that this does not represent the new world order that so many international leaders have spoken of over the past few months.
While everyone feels a sense of attachment to their country, we are all ultimately citizens of the world. I take no pleasure in watching reports of the successful bombing missions inflicted on the people of Iraq. The devastation and human suffering caused by the gulf war will be enormous.
Canada must take a leadership role in searching for the restoration of peace and in looking for ways to deal with the horrendous consequences of war. A lasting peace must be achieved. I pray that in the days to come peace will be restored in the gulf region and that all Canadian servicemen and women will safely return to their families at home. Then, with a sense of both
Government Orders
sadness and a renewed mission, we can begin again to search for a lasting peace and a new world order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, naturally all Canadians are still in a state of shock at the reality that we are at war. I think most of us still find it unbelievable. A country that has for so long prided itself on being recognized globally as peacekeepers finds itself now involved in a horrible battleground in and around the Persian Gulf. Bombers are flying, people are dying, and the sad part of it, of course, is the message that we just received from the Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and the United States Centre for Defence Information predicting that at least 200,000 people will die and another 500,000 people will be seriously injured. The sad point of all of this is that 80 per cent will be civilians and the largest group of civilians will be children.
Let me be perfectly clear at the outset of my remarks. We all recognize that the perpetuator of this process, Saddam Hussein, is indeed a brutal dictator, a barbaric aggressor, first into Kuwait and more recently into the state of Israel. Some people have referred to him as a psychotic personality, a madman, someone who has violated human rights as have few other countries, and has killed off his own people by the thousands in a form of a unmitigated savagery. We deplore the atrocities, of course, that have occurred time and time again in that country as a result of his decisions.
We also must recognize that while we are dealing with Saddam Hussein, there are millions of children and the parents and grandparents of those children who, like us, have no interest in involving themselves in this horrible war.
I speak tonight as a father of two sons, both of draft age. I must say it certainly focuses one's attention. We are discussing here whether or not we ought to be involved. To think that certain decisions may in fact result in their participation. I cannot for the life of me feel comfortable with that as a father of two young boys.
I want to say that when we look at this war the sad part is that we have to admit we have all failed. This is a symbol of defeat, a symbol of failure. It is a mistake. It is wrong. It is unjustified. I think we have simply admitted that we as a species have failed when we find ourselves involved in such a horrible situation, such a brutal and barbaric situation. To think that as we speak here in the House of Commons, hundreds and hundreds oi flights

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
are occurring over Iraq and thousands and thousands of tonnes of bombs are being dropped, and thousands of people are being killed or maimed.
One can only wonder as one looks around the House and you notice that most of us are at an age that has never known war. Our parents and our grandparents have, but to most, war is something that we have only read about or seen on television screens or in movie theatres. We have to wonder if in fact, as historians have reminded us, it appears that every generation must repeat the errors of the previous one. Here we are involved in the unthinkable. I think we are still in shock by the reality that we are involved in a horrible war.
We all, as we speak today, recognize that the men and women in our forces are serving in the gulf region, we pray for them and we hope for a quick return to their homes, their families, and their friends, and of course a return in good health.
I have been almost shocked at the tremendous response by constituents from 1 out of 295 ridings in the country, the riding of Kamloops, with a host of phone calls, letters, telegrams, faxes, delegations, almost universally condemning our participation in this war. I have in my hands petitions from Cariboo University College, Kamloops Secondary School, Logan Lake Secondary School, Westsyde Secondary School, North Kamloops Secondary School, Clearwater Secondary School, Bar-riere Secondary School, Chase Secondary School, a large number of junior secondary schools and a number of elementary schools. Petitions as well have come from the communities of Chase, Penetan Lake, Paul Lake, Raleigh, Heffley Creek, Barriere, Clearwater, Deadman's Creek, Savona, Little Fort, North Thompson Indian Band, Logan Lake, Kamloops, Dallas, Barnhart vale, Brockelhurst, Westwold and a whole host of other communities, as well as a number of churches and many community organizations. They all say that Canada should not be involved in this conflict.
I believe very strongly that getting involved as our government has committed us was a serious error. To have the United States lead an attack on Iraq was in fact an error. Before any country involves itself in these kinds of hostilities, surely to goodness it would explore all
other avenues before it initiated the kind of slaughter and horror that we are seeing now hour after hour.
I must say I felt badly as a Canadian to see our government responding so quickly to the American initiative in terms of involvement militarily in the area of the Persian Gulf. I feel our own foreign policy it is no different from that of the state of Montana. We are essentially now an extension of American foreign policy because immediately, when the United States said that it was becoming involved in an aggressive way in the Persian Gulf, our Prime Minister within seconds said: Aye, aye, sir, we are there with you.
There were no discussions with the people of Canada, no debates in Parliament. The oddity of it all is that today we are debating the issue of our involvement in the Persian Gulf when we have nearly 2,000 troops already in the Persian Gulf and when we have aircraft committed to the Persian Gulf and ships committed to the Persian Gulf. It is a little after the fact. The horse is out of the barn. I say that this has been a very sad moment for Canadians, seeing our foreign policy, particularly when it involves this type of aggression, essentially being led by President Bush of the United States. When we look at whether or not we had exhausted all peaceful possibilities to encourage the brutal Saddam Hussein to get out of Kuwait, we can only say that we did not.
We failed. Look at diplomatic efforts that could have been initiated sometime ago. Granted there was a flurry in the last few hours leading up to the January 15 deadline. We can well admit that much more could have been done. What we did do and we are proud of the fact was we committed to involve ourselves with a sanctions initiative in the Persian Gulf, an attempt to strangle the economy of Iraq sufficiently to require Saddam Hussein to remove his troops and back off from the occupation of Kuwait. But, did we give sanctions a chance to prove themselves? We did not.
Look at the evidence that we have in terms of the successes that were there. I have to simply quote a few people that I think we would all recognize. They are certainly respected, knowledgeable people who understand the role of sanctions. I can quote people like William Webster of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. He said before the United States Congress less than two months ago that 90 per cent of Iraq's imports and 97 per cent of its exports had been stopped.
January 17, 1991

James Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defence for the United States, said that we needed approximately one year for the trade sanctions to work. We allowed them, as we recall, only four or five months.
The Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, in a letter dated December 28 of last year stated that these were the most effective and comprehensive sanctions ever applied by an international community. Of course, sanctions is not a new technique to encourage countries to do certain things. There are 115 cases of sanctions that have been applied around the world. We know that it takes at least one to two years before they can be effective in terms of strangling the life out of an economy sufficiently to require the government of that country to make what we believe are the appropriate decisions.
Let us go on. General Schwarzkopf, Commander of the United States forces in the Persian Gulf, issued a statement in support of continued economic sanctions.
A study of over 100 cases of sanctions that have been applied around the world, indicated that these sanctions will bite, and bite deeply, and bite soon. This is most encouraging. I could go on and quote others. I will just quote two more because I think it is important Canadians recognize that the sanctions were working.
Admiral William Crowe, former Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, appearing before a Committee of the United States Congress said: "The embargo is biting heavily. In my judgment, given the standard of living Iraq is used to and the increasing sophistication of Iraqi society, it is dead wrong to say that Iraq is not being hurt. It is being damaged severely and also I believe that goes for the Iraqi military which depends on outside support".
General David Jones, former Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: "The risk is that the problems inherent in maintaining the offensive military option would create are too problematic." He points out that Saddam Hussein is losing $20 billion to $30 billion in hard currency every year. This, of course also suggests that he is not receiving military supplies. We recognize that the only goods coming into the country were being largely smuggled in. Of course smugglers depend on
Government Orders
hard currency. At this rate, currency was simply drying up in terms of foreign exchange.
I have a long list of all sorts of people who have pointed out that the economy was being devastated by these sanctions. The statistics that the American Congress provided the world were to point out that the Gross National Product of Iraq in only four months had been crushed by 48 per cent. If that is not an effective sanction at work, to see the GNP drop by 48 per cent in just a few weeks, I do not know what other information would be required.
The short and the long of all this is that, yes, the sanctions were working. They were very effective and, had they been given time, we can only conclude that they would have driven Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. But we saw that the United States was not prepared to wait. I say the United States because I think we can all recognize that there almost seemed to be an enthusiasm that the American administration had made a decision, for whatever set of reasons-and we all heard them-not the least of which is the reliance of the American military industrial complex either to be preparing for war or in a war.
Someone succinctly pointed out the other day that the best way to get rid of inventory was to blow it up. We see that that is indeed one of the ways that the American economy is driven. It was decided for a whole set of reasons. If Kuwait was a country of palm trees, date palms and bananas, would American forces by the tens of thousands be involved in reinstating a sheikh, with his family, once again to lead a country, an undemocratic nation, a family that had abandoned a Parliament in that country? I doubt it.
Another aspect of this process has concerned many of us. Someone the other day mentioned that the first casualty of war is truth. We recognize that what we are receiving now day by day on our television screens and through newspapers is propaganda. The American led forces have admitted that the news is being laundered, that everything has to move through military censors. If in fact this was a just war, as some of our government members have indicated, surely then we would not be afraid to expose it. With the fact that the American administration does not allow reporters into the various

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
areas, we can only assume that they are hiding something, that they are covering up something, that they are embarrassed and so on.
Think of what else is happening as we watch television to get the propagandized results of the hour-by-hour goings on in the Middle East.
The other day someone suggested a return to play-byplay action. This is what you say about a Superbowl. This is how you describe a football game. Of course, their play-by-play action was the hundreds of sorties of bombers heading out either to carpet bomb the Iraqi forces dug in, in southern Iraq, or the surgical strikes in the city of Baghdad. Surgical strikes, it almost sounds good, a medical term.
Of course, what surgical strikes means is huge concentrations of bombs or cruise missiles into a single restricted area, resulting in countless deaths and maiming. Think of the wordsmiths, Mr. Speaker, who have crafted terms to sanitize our reaction, to make it more acceptable to accept the fact that our forces, our country, along with some others, are engaged in a military combat with Iraqi forces.
For example, they talk about liberating Kuwait. They mean attacking the armies of Saddam Hussein in that area. They talk about body counts. Well, body counts are dead people. These are people who have been killed. They talk about protecting our assets. Our assets are the young men and women who are there in our Armed Forces. These are not assets; these are young men and women. These are human beings that we are talking about. These are people. They talk about Baghdad looking like a Christmas tree. The Christmas tree was the massive bombing that was destroying huge parts of the city.
This is a language that has been crafted to sanitize, as my hon. colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap so adequately described it earlier today, to make us more acceptable of a horrible, bloody and brutal war.
I want to say simply that we are at war. Twenty-eight countries are involved in the United States' coalition, but only a few are there offensively. That is why we are arguing that Canada should not be there in an offensive mode. Other countries are there with coast guard ships, bringing various sorts and types of expertise to the theatre of war. We suggest too that Canada is there with
a role to play and that our forces should be redeployed, providing military support for humanitarian initiatives to assist and protect the growing numbers of refugees in the Persian Gulf region, hundreds and thousands of people who are going to require support and protection as they flee Iraq. Escort humanitarian shipping in the area and provide assistance, if you like, to refugees, food ships, shelter, medical supplies. Another role is Canada's involvement with the field hospital and other forms of medical support. Those are the roles that Canada should be playing, not an offensive one. I join with countries like Argentina, Czechoslovakia, Denmark and Norway and others there, but not in a combat role.
In conclusion, I simply want to say that we find ourselves involved in a war that ought not to have occurred, that we believe need not have occurred. It has really set back the role of Canada as a peacekeeper, has probably jeopardized and hindered our future role as a meaningful peacekeeper certainly in that part of the world, if not other parts, and has set back the United Nations. We had hoped that with the collapse of the cold war the United Nations might be able to carry on in a new style, with new institutions and new approaches, where we could solve these international geopolitical problems in some more creative, modern, humanistic way than simply sending in troops to engage in combat.
Unfortunately, as a world, as a country, we fail. The fact that we are involved in such a horrible, brutal, bloody war is an indication of our inadequacies.
Let us now, rise to the challenge and not rest until we find ways and means of bringing peace to the Middle East.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member and to other hon. members who have stood up and have spoken in the House.
We as members of Parliament cannot end this war. Our government has decided that we will not only participate in the war in a supportive measure, but it has now decided that we will become offensively involved and through our efforts, we will kill Iraqis.
The absolute majority of people who sit on this side of the House is opposed to it. We have fought it every step of the way. We do not believe that this is a significant,
January 17, 1991

meaningful or useful role for Canadians. I do not personally believe that we have failed.
Our government has failed us. Our Prime Minister has failed us and taken us into a war that we and the majority of Canadians want no part of.
I would put to the hon. member a question. Is it not significant that this Prime Minister and this government enjoy the support of only 12 per cent of Canadians, that 88 per cent of Canadians have absolutely no confidence in this government, that a week ago more than 55 per cent of Canadians and that is a growing percentage wanted absolutely no role in this war that would see the killing Arabs or Iraqis? They felt that Canada did not belong there.
It has indeed been the failure of the Prime Minister to recognize the wishes of the majority of Canadians and to win their confidence. It has been a failure of this government, member after member standing up saying we must support the United States in invading Iraq. The interesting thing that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs both said is if the UN does not, although we would prefer to go in with the UN, we will go with the U.S. and go it alone. That is a colossal failure. The government does not enjoy the confidence of 88 per cent of the people of Canada. It does not enjoy the confidence of a single member on this side of the House.
We have failed to convince the government of anything. We have failed to convince the government to see reason, to exercise humanity and common sense. That indeed is a failing, but it was an impossible task.
Would the hon. member agree that we in fact have not failed? We have tried to put the case in an honest and forthright manner and it has turned a deaf ear. To 88 per cent of Canadians this government has turned a deaf ear. Maybe now is the time for members in the opposition to begin to organize a committee of legislators for peace and to end the war, and to join with other Canadians who want to do this. We can no longer count on our government and we certainly cannot count on the madman to the south of us, George Bush.
Will the hon. member agree that we really have not yet failed, that the only thing we have truly failed in is to convince the government it has already lost?
Government Orders


Nelson Andrew Riis: As usual, my colleague presents a thoughtful argument and raises some very pertinent questions that I suspect most Canadians are asking themselves.
Our government has committed us to this involvement, knowing that 88 per cent of the people of Canada do not support our Prime Minister, knowing that a large majority of Canadians are opposed to our involvement in this war. I remember, as New Democrats were calling for the recall of Parliament before any commitments were made in terms of our participation, that we have a debate in Parliament, hoping that for once the Prime Minister would be sensitive to the views of the people he represents, that just for once he would listen to what Canadians were saying.
Of course, we know from all the polls and all the intelligence that we have received from our own country that overwhelming numbers of Canadians oppose our participation in this war. We even said that when it came to a vote, that it be a free vote to unleash Members of Parliament from the whip, from the lash of the Conservative Party, to represent their constituents on whether or not Canada should be going to war.
I cannot think of a more important decision that this House has taken in the last 50 years than to decide whether or not we should commit ourselves, our country, to a state of war. The Conservative Party did not allow its members to vote on behalf of their constituents. They simply were required to support the Prime Minister in his haste to join his friend, President Bush, in involving ourselves alongside America and American troops. It is a very sad moment for the country.
I want to conclude this statement by simply reading from Hansard of September 8, 1939, a comment made by Mr. Woodsworth, the founder of the CCF, the predecessor of the New Democratic Party. He said:
While we are urged to fight for freedom and democracy, it should
be remembered that war is the very negation of both. The victor
may win, but if he does it is by adopting the selfsame tactics which
he condemns in his enemy.
I think those words are as relevant today as they were back in September 1939.


Raymond John Skelly: I certainly acknowledge the very thoughtful response of the member for Kamloops. I would put another question that

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
follows up on this serious disservice that the media is currently doing to the people of North America.
I recall watching virtually all night last Christmas the American Broadcasting Corporation as described the assault on Panama by the madman to the south of us. We have to remember that the Americans created Noriega. It was not drug interdiction that bothered them as much as his newly adopted position on the Panama Canal. At the moment the Central American dictator began to threaten their ownership of the Panama Canal, it no longer became tolerable to keep him. All other human rights abuses, all other drug trafficking, all other abuses were forgiven until he began to demand control of the Panama Canal.
The American Broadcasting Corporation obviously acted as an agency of the U.S. army, glorifying the activity, glorifying the decision of the President of the United States and indeed distorting the information given to the American people and the way it was picked up by many agencies in Canada. My serious concern is that our media is being roped into that enormous distortion, that denial of information that people need to make rational judgments about this activity.
Part of that strategy is the cutting of the budget to a public broadcasting corporation, one that has a credible record of investigative journalism, absolute responsibility in providing information to the people of this country in a fair and balanced way. This war that George Bush has inflicted and dragged us into by a dog's leash in the Middle East is now being distorted in an even worse manner. I compliment the hon. member on bringing out this enormous disservice about critical broadcasting of American military briefings, and the plot to keep the population in ignorance.
When George Bush said, "we will not enter this war with one arm tied behind us", he was referring in one respect to the absolute denial of any information through a free media about what is going on, the devastation and the information that the population needs to make a reasonable judgment about this war.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of this House, I can honestly say that I deeply regret having to debate this motion, for it is a debate concerning war.
No reasonable individual in Canada or throughout the entire world wanted to see a war in the Persian Gulf or anywhere else, yet tragically since January 17 such a war has occurred and the fragile stability of the Middle East is once again on the line.
For Canada, this tragedy is closer to home this time. The men and women who are representing our country whether on land, at sea or in the air, are carrying out their duties in a very professional and exemplary manner. Our country and our people can be proud of them. We wish each and every one of them a safe and quick return to their loved ones. I know that every member of this House and all Canadians share this wish.
In my riding of Stormont-Dundas, I have received several petitions from constituents who are very concerned about the war in the Persian Gulf. One hundred young students from Newington Public School and 280 St. Lawrence High School students in Cornwall particularly impressed upon me that a generation which has never experienced war does not want to today.
Mr. Brian Ferguson of Cornwall also collected some 500 signatures in the past two days, signatures for peace. I believe these people mirror the views of a majority of Canadians. The people who sign these petitions want an end to the deployment of Canadian Armed Forces personnel in the Persian Gulf. They wish to remind the Government of Canada that Canada has a reputation as peacekeeper and ask that we do not jeopardize this great treasure which Canadians hold so dearly.
We know that Canada has a tradition of being there when needed to help keep the peace. Canadian peacekeeping forces have for some time now been carrying out peacekeeping duties in Cyprus and on the Golan Heights. I hope that should it come about in the days ahead that to achieve a cessation of hostilities, a United Nations peacekeeping force is required, Canada will again be prepared to step forward and offer to participate.
January 17, 1991

The recent missile attack upon the state of Israel has shocked the world. Many felt that Saddam Hussein's threat to launch such an attack on Israel was just that, a threat. Sadly, this was not the case. Nonetheless, we recognize the considerable restraint exercised by Israel not to retaliate.
The world is now wondering and fearing what will happen if Scud missiles with chemical warheads land in Israel. What will happen to the coalition forces against Iraq if Israel counters with a retaliatory strike either by plane or by Jericho missiles? The real potential exists for collapse of the coalition and an escalation to the conflict. The world can only speculate as to what will occur and the ramifications posed by such events. Certainly the Iraqi leadership would relish dividing the coalition by bringing Israel into the war.
Whatever events take place in this war, we can be sure of Canada's resolve to attain peace. Canadians will maintain their commitment to peace. As one of my constituents said in a letter to me and I quote: "peace is the only reasonable alternative to war and that while it is attainable peace can be a difficult goal to achieve."
I believe the United Nations was trying to do the utmost to prevent a war. As well, I think a strong case could be made that this war may well have been avoidable. If the sanctions imposed upon Iraq by the United Nations had been given more time, perhaps this war would never have occurred. Some have argued that Saddam would not have left Kuwait under any circumstances. Perhaps this is true, but war has started. As the leader of our party has said on several occasions, it is easy to start a war but it is very difficult to stop one.
It is the duty of Canadians and all the peoples of the world to work toward ending this war and avoiding any of the catastrophic consequences which this war has the capability of producing. This war, like some have suggested, is not about oil. It is not a result of the United States wanting to attack Iraq. I also believe that there is no wish by the Iraqi people to fight American, British, French, Saudi, Syrian, Egyptian, Canadian or any other nation which is a part of the United Nations coalition in the Persian Gulf.
Government Orders
The coalition is there to remove Iraq from Kuwait since that country was invaded by Iraq. The invasion was condemned by the world community and the decision was made to stand up to this aggression.
It is a mistake to assume that it was absolutely necessary to attack Iraq after the January 15 deadline. Unfortunately, the decision was made and the war was begun.

The Liberal Party's position has been clear throughout this debate. We urged the government to give diplomacy and sanctions time to work. The government did not listen. Although there is no need for war at this point in time, the Liberals are prepared to support our troops, these Canadian men and women who are fighting in the Persian Gulf. We are not going to let them down.

The Liberal Party supports Canada's military effort in the Persian Gulf. This position, however, does not preclude our party from continuing in its efforts to advocate a peaceful and expedient solution to the conflict. Efforts we would seek to end this conflict deserve the full support of Canada.
If the Iraqi leadership is not prepared to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations to end this war, then all the effort and support required to bring about a swift conclusion must be made.
Canadians do not want a prolonged conflict in which the possibility of escalation increases along with the price to be paid in terms of human lives.
One hopes that the Canadian government will do everything within its means to go on the offensive for peace, as much as it is prepared to go on the offensive for war. Canada's respected position in the world must be utilized at every opportunity to lobby for peace.
We have numerous contacts within the western and developing world and we are viewed throughout the Middle East with trust. At the United Nations, Canada has always acted independently and consistently in accordance with the principles and objectives of this international body.
I am sure that all Canadians expect our government to be pro-active in peace efforts. Canada must not ignore the responsibility that is placed upon all nations to take

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
up the cause for peace when war occurs. Every opportunity presented must be followed through in the hope that it brings about peace. The search to bring about peace will indeed be a difficult assignment, but the difficulty of the task in no measure outweighs the rewards of success.
Eventually, this war will come to an end. An assessment will be made on the role this country and others played in this tragic conflict. When it comes to Canada, I hope that we will all be comfortable that our government did take up the cause for peace. If this is not the case, the harm caused to Canada's previous commitment to peace and the security of the world will be among the casualties of this war.
In conclusion, as representatives of the people throughout this country, we have a duty and an obligation to work together outside the sphere partisanship to assist in the efforts to establish peace and bring our Armed Forces safely home. To our soldiers, airmen and sailors in the Persian Gulf go our prayers and our thoughts. They have our steadfast support and that of every Canadian. Let us all hope that before long we will see signs of peace in the Persian Gulf.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member spoke for 10 minutes. I understand that his time is split with another colleague.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Ten-minute question or comment period.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank my hon. colleague who stayed this late to express his views on this very sensitive issue. I wonder if he could elaborate on a point that was already discussed, namely the role Canada could now be assuming: Bearing in mind the possibility of an international conference on peace in the Middle East, what role would he see Canada playing now and in the future? In view of this war unfolding under our eyes, doesn't Canada have a role to play right now on both the military and diplomatic fronts? Canada's military involvement was decided by this government. Could the government not decide that we should also do what Canada is renowned for, namely
playing a diplomatic role? Can he briefly express his views on this?


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Denis for his comments and his question. Certainly, I hope to see Canada take a proactive approach to peace, because it is our duty, as parliamentarians-and I encourage all Canadians to propose solutions to this problem facing us now.
On the subject of the international conference on the Middle-East situation, I certainly am for it. As Canadians who value peace and wish that everybody else in the world: could live in peace all as we do, the least we can do-and we try to as often as possible-would be to get together around a table and recognize respectfully that, while we do have differences, we also share some values such as peace. I would find an initiative along that line very comforting. After all, the idea has been around for years in the UN but, for some reason, it was always postponed. Now that the cold war is over, if the UN could get to play a greater role and take its place in the world, this initiative-finding a peace solution for the Middle East-would be among the first it should undertake.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have been deeply concerned about what has happened these past few days, what has happened the past few weeks and months, as we have seen develop within the world a conflict that is really troubling to many nations. It is a conflict that is not easily resolved and one that has caused a tremendous split in this House and a split in many countries, because decisions have to be made about what should or should not be done when we come into difficult situations.
I have very much had to struggle with what I think is probably the most difficult decision I have ever had to face. That decision affects the lives of many other fellows on this planet, other human beings who are foisted into a conflict which many of us believe should not be.
None of us support what Saddam Hussein has done and we were all horrified when we saw troops go into Kuwait. We saw the atrocities that occurred in that country. We realized what challenges were laid to the democratic world and what challenges were laid to Canada, the United States, Europe and all other countries. I thought to myself, with this conflict coming on in
January 17, 1991

the last few days, we, the Canadian people, have joined a war. What do you say to your constituents? What should we be saying to the Canadian people? What are they concerned about?
It is my opinion that the first message should be given is that we support the troops in this country. We support the families who are very concerned about their loved ones. We pray for a very quick end to this conflict. We hope above hope that all diplomatic means will be brought about by our country and by our government to resolve the crisis, not add to the conflict.
I think that this Liberal view is shared by many. We do not have to go very far to quote some of those who have spoken up in the last couple of days. Reverend Walter Farquharson, leader of the United Church, stated: "We reject the claim of our leaders that there was no alternative". Archbishop Michael Peers, leader of the Anglican Church of Canada, stated: "We reject the notion that war in the gulf is justified". Toronto's Roman Catholic Archbishop stated he was profoundly saddened and would celebrate a special mass for peace on Monday. The Canadian Council of Churches has strongly voiced opposition to this matter.
Why are these people, leaders of the churches in Canada, united on the issue that war could have been avoided? This conflict should not have been as it is.
One only has to think about what the alternative is when war begins. What devastation is caused? What does war cost? Certainly the price of war is very, very high morally, physically and economically. Tens of thousands of lives have a potential of being sacrificed when we hear such terms as carpet bombing.
When I was flying into Ottawa tonight, I flew over several major cities: Windsor, Detroit, London, Toronto, and Ottawa. As I was looking down and seeing the lights of the great metropolitan areas, I thought to myself. "If I were in a bomber flying over here in a B-52 and dropping ammunition and bombs like is going on in Iraq right now, whose life would be hurt?" Fortunately in Canada those bombs are not falling today, but we are authorizing those bombs to fall on other countries. We are authorizing our
Government Orders
own troops to take action which will damage, maim and result in very extreme hardships in Iraq.
Certainly I do not support what Saddam Hussein has done, but I think the action we have taken against him should not have been supported either. Billions of dollars will be spent on our war initiatives. Environmental concerns respecting the use of chemical weapons must be addressed. There is great concern over the bombing in Israel which has just taken place. We all are very much concerned that it is not just going to end with a quick few nights' bombing. The potential of drawing Israel into this conflict and ending up with an Arab war against the western world is there.
We know that escalation could very well happen, and no one should put aside the possibilities of what may happen in the future once action has started. Chemical weapons, if used by Iraq, could cause unlimited damage to citizens living in the Middle East if, as the reports we hear from the gulf suggest, oil is spilled in the Persian Gulf from huge tankers or oil wells and set afire. The environmental damage that could result from that will not be cleaned up for centuries. It would be catastrophic globally. This is on top of the devastation that is now being created by conventional weapons.
There is no question why many world church leaders took a position against war. What other alternatives did we have? We had sanctions in place. We were taking positive measures to hurt Saddam Hussein, not physically with bombs but economically with sanctions, hurt him to the point where his economy had slowed down considerably, hurt him by less violent means, means by which the same end could have been achieved.
It seems to me when we talk about how we handle problems that a society must look at the end results, the long-range results not the short-range ones. There is absolutely no question the war that is going on now will create scars and concerns, one nation against another, not just for a few days or a few years; the scars will be for centuries. I have a concern about the divisions that we are creating by a war of this nature. I strongly believe we are creating divisions among races in this world by this type of action.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
When I read an article by Carole Goar in The Toronto Sun I started to think about the kinds of information we have been given by the Prime Minister and the government. It makes one stop and consider whether we have been told clearly and honestly what the situation has been as it has developed over these past months.
On August 10, the Prime Minister had three ships refitted. The government absolutely had no mandate. They were refitted and sent to the gulf. When asked by reporters and members of Parliament what actions were being taken at that time, he said: "We have no mandate". Two weeks later, on August 25, the UN Security Council announced sanctions against Iraq. Certainly the Prime Minister knew when he talked to the press on August 10 that there were mandates for those ships. However, the Canadian public was not told that, nor was the Parliament of Canada. These ships arrived in Italy on September 11 and they were kept there three days. By September 14 we received another announcement that CF-18s were to be sent to the gulf and the ships were on active duty. It is interesting to note why that September 14 date came about, because it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to bring back Parliament within 10 days when ships are being sent into an area of possible war or conflict.
In not sending the ships in on September 11 when they arrived, but holding them to September 14, obviously the Prime Minister was trying not to call back Parliament immediately and thereby let the people of Canada know. He waited until September 24 to bring Parliament back.
On November 16, our Minister of National Defence announced that we had not ruled out Canada's support for force outside the UN. He more or less suggested that if the UN did not condone physical support, Canada was considering it anyway. He clearly sent a message that Canada would act independently outside the United Nations and that was the avenue it was taking.
On December 28, the Prime Minister promised that Canadians would have plenty of warning if troops were sent on the offensive. On January 8, the Prime Minister said there is no need to recall Parliament. However, on January 15 Parliament was recalled. The bombs started to fall on January 16. The UN deadline date was up.
Did the Prime Minister fulfil his promise of recalling Parliament and telling Canadians well in advance of Canadian offensive actions? I do not think so. I really believe the Prime Minister went in another direction. He talked with James Baker. He talked with President Bush, and I think he had a clear indication of what hostilities would occur and at approximately what time. He called Parliament back to debate this issue after he had made the decision.
I find it very ironic to stand here today and debate a motion that we voted on on November 29. We are redebating it and we are going to revote on that motion after the action has been taken. I find that wrong. I find it wrong because, if the Prime Minister were going to take action, if he were going to commit the troops, and he knows the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada both voted against the same motion, he should have explained it to the House. Yet, he put it on the floor after the bombs flew to have us vote on it again.
I think it was done for a specific reason. The Prime Minister, in putting forth the motion, may well have been trying to gain partisan ends. I find that wrong. The Prime Minister of Canada and the Parliament of Canada should not be aiming at partisan ends in this particular case. We should be looking at what is right and what is wrong. I do not feel that is the course we are on.
I honestly feel that in each major issue we have dealt with in the last couple of years, the guideline has been to divide and confuse the Canadian public. Free trade is a very dividing issue in this country. Meech Lake is a very dividing issue in the country. The Oka situation, same thing. The propositions he put forth to solve our economic problems, same thing again. With this situation, he has put forth an issue which he knew on November 29 was going to divide this House.
I think the Prime Minister and his cabinet should have put a motion forward which would have stated: We support our troops; we will work toward a democratic end; we will do everything we can to bring a quick end to the war. But no, he puts a motion to support the actions of the government which I think, and he well knows, is only a further division of the country. If any person in

January 17, 1991

this country has a reverse Midas touch, it is our Prime Minister. Everything falls apart when he touches it.
Some strong questions have come forward about the role of the United Nations and whether this Parliament supports the actions of the United Nations. I firmly believe this Parliament has supported the role of the United Nations. All three parties supported the sanctions and voted for them in this House. It came down to a question of whether or not we go to war.
I think everyone here must realize-and it is very evident to many international experts on that the mandate of the Security Council resolution 678 does not fully give power to the United Nations. It says that any independent country can attempt to bring Kuwait back to a status of freedom. In other words it authorized the United States to act independently. It authorized Canada to act independently. It authorized every other country to act independently.
From the questions we have had in this House, it has been clearly stated that Canada is not acting under the UN flag. Canada is acting as an independent nation under the flag of Canada. I believe that Canada is acting as an independent nation. It is not acting for or against, or in any other direction with regard to the United Nations. It is following an option that was left by a resolution in the United Nations.
I guess when I look at it more carefully, and I try to determine what the difference is, it really is clear that each nation involved in this conflict has made independent decisions and that the decision for conflict was not made by the United Nations.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, when interviewed the night the war began, said he was not aware of the conflict beginning. When the Secretary-General of the United Nations is not aware, it is very clear it was not a United Nations action: It was an action of independent nations through a motion from the United Nations.
Canada still supports the United Nations, and all the parties here support the actions of the United Nations. We just do not agree that Canada should be in a conflict where many of us feel Canada's interest is not. I do not know what our international interest in the Middle East is besides peace and fair treatment to all who are there.
Government Orders


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on a very thoughtful and clearly articulated analysis of the situation. I want to support, as everyone else has, his comments about supporting our Canadian Armed Forces and their families, probably the Canadians most critically involved and under the highest anxiety in this entire country. The support that we can lend their families and to the degree that we can support them, I laud his remarks and identify with them fully.
I would ask how this suggestion sits with him, given his analysis. Anything that is said any longer in this House falls on deaf ears. The government and the Prime Minister have made up their mind on that course of action. I am torn. I heard the comments of the hon. member for Saint-Denis about the value of people on this side of the House thinking through their positions and thoughtfully articulating those honest positions.
We are rapidly coming to the end, I think, of the usefulness of that process. I for one have decided that I am going to get on the telephone tomorrow and spend my time phoning every clergy person, every labour leader, every business community leader, in fact as many people as I can, and asking them in the area in which we live in North Island-Powell River to start forming a committee to end the war. As legislators in this place, we can no longer convince the people who hold the levers of decision-making to end this war.
I am going to ask that committee if it would consider doing that. It was effective over a long period of time in the United States and I think it is important today. I am going to phone the Reform Party leader in that area, the Christian Heritage Party, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and ask them to join with us in a non-partisan way in representing the majority of Canadians and indeed the majority of people. The thinking people on this side of the House must begin the process of attempting to end the war.
The first step would be to have this government end the involvement of the Canadian Armed Forces in aggressive attacks on Iraq. The greatest support that we can give to our men and women in the Armed Forces is to pull them back before one of them is killed in this unjust war. That is the greatest thing we could do for their families.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
The second thing I am going to ask that committee to consider is to have the Prime Minister of Canada end Canada's involvement in this war. The most constructive thing our Prime Minister could do is end the international political support to the United States for continuing the war.
We then must move forward and convince other smaller and middle sized nations to convince the United States that this war is wrong. We should work together with all other people in this world not only to end this war, but to make sure it does not start again, nor does another start again.
That is probably the most constructive thing that I can do tomorrow morning. I think every other member of this House should do the same. We can no longer convince the Conservative government of the justice of ending the war and ending the international political support for the United States. This is not a United Nations war; this is an American war.
In the United States, the thing that stopped the Vietnamese war was a general committee across the United States to end the war. We have an obligation to do that in Canada and make it work as quickly as possible. The greatest support we can give to our armed forces and to their families is to make sure that we get them out before one of them is killed.


Jerry Pickard: I would like to thank my colleague for his comments and his positive recommendations, because I think that when we look at situations we must come up with alternative means to reach goals where we cannot reach them traditionally.
It does appear that our abilities to reach the Prime Minister, the cabinet and those in power in this government have been stifled on almost every issue. It does not matter about the outcry of the people in the country. It does not seem to matter about many things.
I believe that some areas could be very important. The hon. member touched upon talking with people who are very concerned about stopping the war. I would hope that those people would take the time to write every one of the Conservative members of Parliament as well as other members of Parliament and to do some lobbying within their own area.
I am not one to say just carry a placard and forget about it, but I try to bring forward some logic, some concern, the feelings of the grassroots people in every constituency. Perhaps members will start listening to the
people. I think that is really the only way we will defeat a blockade at this time.
I really feel we are in a blockade with the government at this point in time. We are unable to get our thoughts through. We are unable to convince the government of what the general population is saying. When 85 per cent of the people oppose many of the policies and still it goes on as though things were normal, when its popularity is so far down that it only represents a very minimum number of people in this country, I have to think that we should be very concerned about the direction we are going, very concerned about the next couple of years.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience.

I would like to ask my colleague if he would an elaborate on something that is very important to us in our party, and I am sure in the New Democratic Party. It is an idea that has been floating around for so many years. It has been betrayed for so long, betrayed, yes, betrayed by those who only pay lip service to probably one of the most important points. It was a hope un espoir: the international conference on peace in the Middle East. Would he kindly elaborate on this idea and the kind of role that Canada should have played, and could still play?


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague again for the question. In this particular situation it is very clear that over the years Canada has had a very clear role, a role of diplomacy, a role of trying to seek solutions, a role of peacekeeping and attempting to avoid conflict, not at any cost but to avoid conflict because of the hurt that it causes other nations when these situations give way to war.
Canada has been a nation extremely well respected because of our ability to negotiate, to be diplomatic, to rise above the issue and look at it from a perspective of how we can resolve the problem. I do not think for one minute that Canada's role should change. However, I do believe at this present time that is not the predominant role Canada is playing. We have formed a very strong coalition with the country to the south. We have followed along on every turn, not only in economics but also in war.

January 17,1991	COMMONS
Rather than resolve and look for solutions and be very positive about how we deal with the Middle East, we have done just the opposite. We have joined with a country that has a very strong vested interest. That vested interest is the economics of the Middle East. The vested interest of the economics of the Middle East is an interest to the world. However, because of that we do not take out a baseball bat and try to win the problem by taking very crude actions, whether they be carpet bombing or whatever. We are supporting aggression rather than diplomacy. That is wrong.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, the government has cheapened everything it has touched since it came to power.
I was a bit hesitant about whether I should refer to free trade and what it has done to the nation. I was a bit hesitant about whether I should refer to the changes to the unemployment insurance provisions in this country and what it has done to the nation. But having heard some previous speakers refer to them, I have now done so as well. I would suggest that it is most appropriate to do so, if for no other reason than to give other examples of what the government has done. Handling the Middle East is no different when it comes to handling the situation in a way that cheapens the coin of the realm. The government sped Canadian forces off before Parliament was consulted. It sped Canadian forces off before the United Nations had made its determination as to what should be done but not before the United States had determined what it thought should be done. It has cheapened the House too and, along with it they have cheapened democracy. This is the first major issue before the House in the last two years where debate has not been terminated by closure.
I rather suspect that at this juncture in the debate the government is only too hopeful that it would in some way be able to do just that. Its actions in denigrating everything it touches has also denigrated politicians and, in the eyes of the public, fouled the reputation of those who have put themselves in the service of this country.
One would have thought a new low had been reached in putting forth the motion because the motion itself is something which is blatantly biased. It goes a long way

Government Orders
toward putting almost the final nail in the coffin of the cheapening of this country.
The motion "that this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait" is obviously a well-crafted motion. The government would have known, as has already been referred to it as something which the Liberals and the New Democrats would oppose. That there would probably be a final vote on it would be forcing the opposition in Parliament to vote against the United Nations. We have heard references in the debate from the other side of the House that that is precisely what they are up to. They have made that accusation already.
But a new low was reached for this government when the Secretary of State for External Affairs joyfully held up the report of Amnesty International to verify the atrocities that had occurred in Iraq and then had the temerity to table the report. There are three crimes in the use of this information. The first is the use of an Amnesty International report. The taking of one quote in context to prove a point as he was doing is a scurrilous way to use information. Second, it cheapens the reputation of perhaps the most exemplary organization in the world because the reference was made to only one country. Third, it cheapens the whole debate because it refers to only one country while there are references in the reports of Amnesty International to other countries as well.
To hold up that one report as an example of how life is being threatened in one country and only one country, is to cheapen human life altogether. It quantifies the value of life and I will tell the House why. There are other entries in other reports, if not this one, of Amnesty International and I will cite one. "Sixteen executions, 2,300 under sentence of death. A supreme court decision allows offenders as young as 16 and the mentally retarded to be executed." That reference is not to some Third World country. That reference is not to some country which we usually consider to be undemocratic or backward. That reference is to the United States of America.
I refuse to be trapped into a numbers game on the value of human life. What Saddam Hussein did, and does, is indescribably vile. But a life in Des Moines or a life in San Francisco is as precious as that in Iraq. Barbarism is to be universally condemned. That was my hope when we entered what has often been referred to

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
in the House lately as the new order. My hope was that the kind of barbarism which is described as coming out of Iraq, or which I have just described as taking place in the United States as well, would have been something that would have brought the world to unite in eradicating, as well as it ought to be. Instead of that we have war.
I do not necessarily mean to just condemn the United States or Iraq because of those references. Almost every country in the world is mentioned in those Amnesty International reports and there is a rather an interesting exclusion from the 1989 Amnesty International report. What if things continue to go much further downhill in this country as I expect they might be? It is this country which I am referring to. Canada is not included in the last report of Amnesty International. That may possibly be a result of our history and some of the things that this country has stood for. It is something to be very proud of, but something also to be very highly guarded and regarded.
Turning to the new order, how hopeful we were a year ago when the Berlin Wall came down. We hoped and saw, as I have indicated, that some of the barbarism which had occurred behind the Iron Curtain and all over the world would somehow or other be put to a halt. We had hoped that the east, the west, the north, and the south would be able to unite as the human race and be able to eradicate this kind of thing.
Instead of that we get arguments from the other side of the House, and what are they saying? They are saying we are in a new order; this is a wonderful time. We had trouble before in this world in bringing nations to justice, the argument being because the cold war prevented the United Nations from carrying out its mandate. That statement is innocuous enough but not when translated into action. We would hope that some of the words the party on the other side of the House uses would be turned into action, but unfortunately they are not.
These words were turned into action and what did it translate into? It translates into them saying: "Now that we did not have to worry about taking action against someone who is an ally of someone on the other side of the Berlin Wall, we could all unite. No one has to worry about taking action against some other country and
having someone on the other side of the Berlin Wall would take it out on them".
Instead of having a world in which we are able at least potentially to be able to conquer this barbarism, we now have a world where barbarism is let loose because we live in a new world order. That is the message I have been receiving from the other side of the House as an interpretation that we live in a new world order.
Can we imagine anyone saying that the cold war prevented the United Nations from carrying out its mandate? God help us if that really does get translated into the mandate of the United Nations being war, and that certainly is the first manifestation that we have seen as a result of the concerted action by the world community after the tearing down of the Berlin Wall.
A lot of interesting quotes seem to have come out of the debate over the last two or three days. I would have to go back in Hansard to see who said it, but someone said that a blind passion for peace led to World War II.
I know who said that and hon. members know who said that, don't they? The Prime Minister said that, at least he quoted someone who said that. I do not know who originally said it, but I do know that the Prime Minister quoted that. He said that a blind passion for peace led to World War II. Someone on the other side of the House then asked, in reference to a similar quote: "Would sanctions have worked against Mussolini, or would they have worked against Hitler?" How on earth is anyone to know whether they would have worked? They were not tried. There have been references on this side of the House to people involved on Mussolini's side of that conflict who said that if sanctions had been applied, "you are doggone right they would have worked, and worked quickly."
There was no intention of ever applying sanctions at the beginning of World War II. The industrial business complex of the world on both sides profited from what was happening in the build-up of arms on both sides of the conflict.
As a matter of fact, a late friend of mine worked in Bermuda during World War II as a censor. Every piece of mail that went back and forth between North America and Europe went through the hands of censors. He said to me, still maintaining his oath of secrecy: "Ron, you would be appalled if you knew what the business leaders
January 17, 1991

of this nation had really been up to during World War II".
I do not really know whether or not sanctions would have worked at the beginning of World War II. I do know that they certainly were not tried.
I would like to make a reference to World War II which I have not heard anyone refer to yet. Others here have said they are not really historians. I do not claim to be an historian, but it seems to me that in the last two world wars, it was the United States who followed Canada into war. To put it another way, certainly the United States got into these conflicts after Canada did. I wonder what has happened in the meantime to put the United States into such a state of haste.
God help us, had the United States followed Canada into this war. We like to pride ourselves as being a "kinder and gentler" nation, although I rather suspect that under the leadership of the present government the probability is that it was pretty much a mutual decision to go into this war. I would suggest that under the leadership of a philosophically different government this nation would have been one which would not have led and would not have followed the United States into war.
When we get into the matter of sanctions, I think the concept of the world order is something which is relevant. As a matter of fact, I may have been a bit unkind when I referred to the glee with which the government marched into the new world order by saying that the whole thrust of the United Nations had been thwarted by the cold war.
The imposition of sanctions was evidence, without a doubt, that that new order had some potential. Under the new order, with almost every nation on earth agreeing that Saddam Hussein was a barbarian and ought to be curtailed in his actions, the countries of Iraq and Kuwait-which he had occupied, admittedly, with no justification whatsoever-were surrounded.
I really have not been in all that many situations where I have been surrounded and wanted to get out, but I do speak the English language. I understand what "surrounded" means and the kind of concerted action that was arrayed against Saddam Hussein. I stand here with full acknowledgement that my party was fully behind the
Government Orders
imposition of sanctions against that dictator and madman, Saddam Hussein. If somehow or other, with the whole idea of the new world order, come to a point peacefully where a madman surrounded, incapable of being able to carry on much longer, is immobilized, he then would most certainly not have been able to succeed for very much longer.
I see that my time is running short, but I would like to say that this whole idea of sanctions having been given a chance is absolute rot. I do not want to over-emphasize it, but if we can give the Government of South Africa 30 years of voluntary sanctions which eventually proved to work, we can certainly impose sanctions against Saddam Hussein which can last much longer than five months. That was an artificial deadline anyway.
There are many more things which could be said, but I would like to close with the thought that comes from a quote from Anthony Star, since we seem to be so fond of making quotations in the House.
Anthony Star says: "With the exception of certain rodents, no other vertebrate habitually destroys the members of its own species." War can only be viewed as the definitive expression of the disposition of the human race. I pray that before long the government comes to its senses and does everything it can to reverse what it has gotten into and what this world has got into.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on an excellent and insightful speech and solid recommendations to this House. I know he agrees with me that those recommendations, like all those proceeding from this side of the House, have fallen on deaf ears. In fact the Prime Minister of Canada and each and every Conservative member have made up their minds that Canada will become involved in this war, and that we will commit our Armed Forces, with the United States and a limited number of other nations, to attack Iraq.
Would the hon. member be interested tomorrow in beginning the process of joining together with other like-minded legislators and citizens into attempting a different route, possibly creating committees to stop the war? Such committees would be made up of any willing citizen in each of our local areas: people in the clergy, members of organized labour, the business community, local legions, veterans groups, and women's organizations-a broad coalition of people without partisan

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
consideration with a single objective to have this government stop Canadian involvement in the war.
Possibly, we could encourage the peace community in Ottawa to come into our offices, to act as volunteers, to use the telephone services, the mail services and any other services that a member's office could provide, and to help organize these committees in ridings that we possibly do not hold.
Personally I would like to see a committee to stop the war in the riding of every cabinet minister in the government, in the riding of the Prime Minister but ultimately attempt to establish across Canada in the strongest possible fashion to convince the government of the wrong-headed approach that it has taken. It has placed Canada in jeopardy in the world. It has placed the Armed Forces and the members of their families in jeopardy.
Such a committee could act to end Canada's involvement and its Armed Forces in the war. It could end the international political support for George Bush by the Prime Minister and his government. It could convince other smaller nations that have no interest in the kind of butchery that will proceed from the action from this day forth. It could work together with people to stop this war, to end Canada's involvement, and then move to working with like-minded individuals and groups in the United States to stop American involvement in this war.
Such committees could take up the issues that have been dealt with in the House. Canada's nation is a nation with dirty hands in selling arms, nuclear reactors, and the tools of war. It could take up the issue of stopping the assassins that have been put in place, in many cases by the United States, in El Salvador, Central America, Latin America, and southeast Asia.
It could work on a number of issues that we, on this side of the House, have complained about. But it is now almost time to end this debate. There is no point having a vote. It will never convince the government. It will never have an impact on it.
What will have an impact is if the 88 per cent of Canadians who oppose the Prime Minister, the government, and this war band together in an enormous national effort to get us out of the war, and then work to get the Americans out of the war. That is all we can do, I would think.
Would the member not agree, and would he be willing to participate in such an activity?


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for making that suggestion and, indeed, for asking that question. The answer is an unqualified yes.
There are other numbers we can give, but there is a telephone out here in the lobby behind me. The area code is 613-995-9557. It is 3.50 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. We sometimes think that people do not watch, but I think we would probably be surprised. We will try to get the other telephone numbers. This is only for our own Opposition Whips, but there is a general telephone number with a lot of telephone lines on it. We will get those.
There are six minutes of my time left. Maybe, before I am finished, we will be able to give out other numbers. The number, again, is 613-995-9557.


Mr. Walker:: How about your home number?


Ron Fisher: I come from Saskatoon. Of course, the number there is 306-382-3361. It is in the phone book, and everyone knows it.
The answer to the question is, yes, I would become involved in that.
There was an excellent advertisement in the Star Phoenix just last weekend. The fax numbers of the Prime Minister's and Secretary of State for External Affairs were supplied. I would certainly encourage people to do that.
I think we should emphasize that we are not saying that Canada should pull out of the situation altogether. No Canadians would disagree with Canada's involvement in the imposition of sanctions, which we had been involved with before. As the New Democratic Party, we have proposed that there be a pause in the hostilities.
We have been apprised by previous speakers that the news which we have been receiving has been distorted
January 17, 1991

and laundered by the military. So, I suppose that the reports that the Iraqi capability to retaliate and to function has been almost destroyed is probably wrong.
Nonetheless, there is no point in annihilating a nation. It is Saddam Hussein and his army which we are trying to bring to a halt. To continue beyond what is militarily necessary to accomplish that, to continue with an annihilation of the civilian population, and to continue with just an annihilation of even the geographical entity which is Kuwait and Iraq is insanity of the highest order.
There seems to be a tremendous amount of logic to having a pause in hostilities and saying to this madman: "It is time you laid off what you are doing. We, as humanity, are willing to give you an opportunity to be able to back off from what you are doing and to come to your senses." At the same time, the sanctions would be heavily imposed upon him.
I have another number here, Mr. Speaker. The area code again is 613-996-7441.
I am not sure if that answers the question entirely, but it is an excellent idea, something which has to be fostered and continued, and hopefully it will bring this nation to its senses and, perhaps, put Canada back into the leadership where it would be able to bring the world to its senses as well.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I would just like to extend my own personal thanks to you for seeing this debate. I know it has been a very long evening for you and, through you, Mr. Speaker, I would thank the employees of the House of Commons and the people at the table for their perseverance through this very long but very important debate.
As I prepared myself for this debate, I decided I would spend the day back in Winnipeg, inasmuch as it is an issue that concerns the people of my city very much. As I flew back, I was struck by how divided people were.
I went to the Westmister United Church and met with the peace groups and heard views about what this country was all about. If I would talk to my friends at the work-out class around the corner, they would give me other ideas. Yet, if I went to the legion, the first legion in the country, Legion No. 1 on Sargent Avenue, its
Government Orders
members would have a different point of view, as do the members of the Sir General Sam Steele Legion in the north end.
This diversity of views, while at many times is a healthy reflection of a democratic society, is also a reflection of the very divided society that we have right now. When one enters a war theatre in wartime with such divisions, one has to reflect on why that is.
I was saying to myself when I prepared that it is a very odd debate to have. The motion was crafted, thought about, and presented to the House in a time of peace, on the edge of war, but still in a time of peace. Yet, we are winding up the debate today in the middle of a war. In some respects it is hard to believe that it has only been 60 hours since the first guns were fired and the first planes took off and headed into Iraq. It seems like a lifetime ago that we have a chance to save ourselves from war and now we are right in the middle of a very difficult struggle.
Many of us spend our time while we are not debating in the House watching this theatre on television. In some respects, this is the first war that we have been forced into the scene by watching the devastation caused by bomb after bomb. Heavens knows what will happen when the troop movement will begin. However, we are also very removed from it. We cannot reach out to the TV and turn it off. We cannot stop those bullets or bombings. Our democratic societies feel helpless because we do not want to see these actions wished upon anyone. Yet, it is beyond our control. At the very moment we are more involved in a real way through international television, we are made to feel not part of it, but removed and helpless by it.
We have to think of how one contributes thoughtfully to debate such as this one. We are all peace loving, but we have very different strategies for producing peace and making sure that we have a society that continues in peace.
Again, I was struck by the fact that one of the major emotions we have is the emotion of anger. How many times in the House have we had an opportunity to show consensus on the one hand, but on the other were presented with motions and opportunities that would only create division.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
For example, there have been many individual remarks-and I would like to add my own to them-about how thankful we are for the troops and the members of the Armed Forced who are obeying the government and presenting themselves in very difficult situations by going out on the limb and putting their families in fear for their futures and all that goes with war. The House was never presented with a motion to thank these people. What would have been more simple for the government to call for the unanimity of the House to thank those who had volunteered for war? I am sure there would not have been one member from any of party, or from among the Independents, who would have said no to that motion. But were we given to show unanimity as to what this House feels? No. Instead, the government has sought ways to divide us.
When one begins to talk about a situation as difficult as the Middle East, one has to reflect on history. I was reviewing the speeches of my colleagues from the last few days and was amazed by the number of people who have turned to history and found examples to support their cases. What would have Prime Minister Pearson done? What would Prime Minister King have done? What would President Roosevelt have done? Among all three parties there has been support from these famous people for their position. In fact, the Prime Minister managed to find words of Stanley Knowles which buttressed his case. I am sure that the NDP were surprised to find Mr. Knowles on the side of our Prime Minister.
They have each had their own crises and contradictions to deal with. Mr. King had to deal with a depression, the Second World War, the lost generation and the failure of the League of Nations. Mr. St. Laurent had to deal with the recreation of North America and, more important Europe, and a cold war. They had to deal with the beginning of the developing nations and the first of the colonies breaking away from the European powers.
In the sixties, we had the beginning of Vietnam and the threat of nuclear war. In the seventies, we had the oil crisis and the second of the serious battles in the Middle East. In the eighties, we had the beginning of the end of the eastern European bloc. Each one of these decades has created circumstances that should cause us to turn back to these people not as heroes necessarily because they solved problems and they had very difficult times, but to cause ourselves to be reflective on the situation that we find ourselves in.
Often, one approaches the problem by thinking how it began, before beginning to solve it. For example, think of Canada and the trouble we are into.
When you enter a constitutional debate, your answer is largely determined by how you conceive the country: is it two founding nations, is it a country that is 130 years old, is it a country that is older than that and, if so, how much older, is it 10 provinces which have made a deal that they can all then recreate the deal, or is it a series of regions?
That might look like an academic and sort of obtuse question when I am discussing the Middle East, but think of the price that Canada has paid by not thinking through that problem. We now have a constitutional crisis because we did not take the aboriginal people seriously. We thought our history began somewhere between 100 to 200 years ago. The aboriginal leaders said no, that this country began 1,000 years ago; you had better begin to think of how to conceptualize that. We refused to acknowledge that at the bargaining table and what happened? We failed to reach an agreement. If we had thought four or five years ago that the real basis of this country included our original peoples, we would now be in a different situation. So we turn ourselves to the Middle East and say to ourselves: "Where do these battles begin?"
Canada has now entered a front for the first time as a member of a war force. No matter how we want to say it, we are working very closely with our allies, but this is the first time we have really intruded in that region, unless one wants to consider Cyprus, which is part of that region but not as directly concerned. What do we think of that crisis? Do we think it began last August with the invasion of Kuwait? Do we think it began with the oil embargo? Do we think it began with the division of Palestine after the Second World War? Do we think of the divisions after the Great War by the European powers? 'Is its origins in different religions that go back for centuries? It is ethnicity? What is the basis of that conflict?
When you enter into a crisis situation, you better have it pretty clear in your mind what you think the problem might be because you want to come out with a solution. Our party was very reluctant, as this House knows, to see us get involved in this conflict. We saw it as one of a series of problems. Although force has been exercised many times before in the Middle East, and never once has it produced the so-called end solution, the agreement that has solved all problems, the agreement among all agreements, that has never worked. For some reason
January 17, 1991

we have decided that this particular time it is going to work.
In posing this question and opposing what has been taking place, this party has been very careful not to position itself among those people who are simply anti-American or pacifist by definition. There are times when wars have to be fought. Many Canadians have in their families people who have fought in wars for good reasons and have paid the price. We in the Liberal Party respect that and have participated in that and supported that.
There is a very good article by a British journalist, Hugo Young, writing in the Manchester Guardian, last week. He argued that Saddam alone is to blame. What he did in this article is very interesting and is something which I think every politician has to do, and that is to read something which tears apart every one of your arguments so that you are sure of yourself. I thought in preparing for today that this person had read my speech before I began and had an argument against every one of my positions.
The Liberal Party has been very thoughtful behind the scenes in its deliberations and its research. It was able to conceive a position which was consistent with its historical commitment to the United Nations but, at the same time thought that certain steps should be taken before we entered the arena. Since we have done that step, it is very important that we take those mistakes made by this government and try to understand how we should be approaching the problem in the future.
I think one of the most important aspects of this debate this week which has to be put on the table by every parliamentarian who is honest with what he or she has seen in their constituencies is the anger of Canadians that we are in this position. It does not matter whether or not they agree that we should be at war or disagree, they are angry. The reason they are angry is that they became confused after Christmas as to exactly why January 15 was the date on which war had to be begun. Why had Canada found itself so closely allied to a position which Canadians themselves were not sold on?
Government Orders
We go back and we say that the government has failed to communicate with Canadians and that the price that is being paid is that we enter into the war without a consensus in this country that this war is going to be a benefit. The government failed to identify the interest of Canada in the Middle East. There are very real interests and ones that we should be fighting for. It failed to open up the debate to Parliament during the summer. It failed to have ongoing debate on this issue. It failed in Question Period to answer these debates openly. It failed to provide briefings to Canadians who were interested. It refused to go out and discuss the issues honestly with peace groups. It refused to consult widely. It ended up with this bull-headed attitude that they knew what was right, cabinet knew what was right, the senior civil servants knew what was right, and they were going to get Canada in there no matter what.
Now history is being recreated. Those of you who like to watch media spins and the media spin doctors, as they are called in the trade now, will recognize that since the decision was made, in fact beginning last Thursday before the decision was made to commence the offence against Iraq, all of a sudden we got news that this government had been out seeking peace constantly. For six months they said nothing but "we have to stick by that deadline, we have to push, push, push." Then all of a sudden we find out they are whispering: "No, no, no. We really, really were trying to do something much different. We were really trying to be on the side of peacemakers here. We just said those other things because that is what is expected of us".
How do you end up expecting people to believe that they have to be there on the war front when in fact the government says that it tried everything so that it would not have to be there on the war front. For the last sue months government members were saying they had to be there in the war front by January 15. And you ask why Canadians are confused. It is because the situation presented to them was confusing and totally manipulative.
That has to be part of the public record because we cannot generation after generation disappoint people who think that the base of this country should be peaceful. As they enter into a situation which frustrates them and they feel manipulated, they get locked out, and that includes particularly younger people and university

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
students, church groups, people who are not normally high profile in the political community. They look around and say: "We do not understand why this is happening. Why do we have to be there?"
There is a good argument to be made, and one that I personally accept, that in a legitimate process involving the United Nations, and in more specific ways with the NATO countries that we are allied with, Canada has a duty, a responsibility, to participate in collective action that preserves our security and preserves world peace. That has been a principle that Canada has adhered to since the original meetings to form the UN in San Francisco. It is a tradition we are proud of. It is a tradition for which we have gone out on the limb in one crisis after another, that people before me have spoken about, many Prime Ministers have faced, and faced with an equal perspective. That is the direction we go in.
However, when you begin to cut corners, you fail to tell people that the UN motion really is not a UN flag type of motion. It really is anybody who wants to get involved can get involved. We are not really going to say it that way. We like you all to help out, but if you do not want to, you do not have to. If that is the way you want to go, that is fine. But be honest. Do not tell Canadians that it is a UN flag operation when they find out too late that we are all there under our own flags and there is a co-ordinator, we think, although we have not really been told this by the Minister of National Defence. We think there is a co-ordinator. We think he might be someone else who is not a Canadian, but we are not too sure of who it is, but we are told it cannot be the UN because co-ordination under the UN will not work. But you say to yourself: "Come on, guys, treat us with some honesty; tell us why we are there under this organization, why you think it is going to work, how we should contribute, and if you think things have to be stepped up to protect our troops and to protect our interests in the Middle East". Obviously things are going to have to be stepped up now-"do not tell us this week, as if you did not think about it last week or the week before, that you are making this decision just now".
Today I heard that we were going to have to move troops into the Middle East. Why are we moving troops into the Middle East? To protect our hospital. Look at the logic.
We are bringing in a hospital to look after the wounded and to protect the wounded. We are bringing in troops instead of honestly saying that we think we should have troops there as part of the allied force. If we want to have troops there as part of the allied force, stand up and say to Canadians that we now have to expand our base, we are going to move in troops. Then we can deal with the issue honestly. We can ask questions in Question Period, we can present motions. We can call the committee together and we can talk about it. But to do it backward, how can any parliamentarian argue against having troops there to protect a hospital? Nobody can. This is the deceit that must drive our Armed Forces crazy, because they have an honest role to play. Canadians respect the Armed Forces. They are committed to seeing Canada play an honourable role. They are proud of the tradition in this country of having an independent foreign policy, one which they feel is formulated in our Canadian Parliament and is developed by the cabinet. There is a set of democratic institutions here second to none in the world, but when ideas and strategies are presented in a convoluted way Canadians pull back.
The government now has the spectre of entering a war with more and more Canadians opposing it. How can you develop a country feeling pride in itself? We are a country with a government that has made it bankrupt. We are in the middle of a recession. We have a constitutional crisis. We have had a crisis of aboriginal people. Now we head into war, and they turn around and they do not know why the country is demoralized. If they went back to their constituencies they would know why people are demoralized. Because they have not seen one thing go right for them for such a long time, they forget what it is like to feel good about themselves. They are not going to feel good about themselves by being in a war they do not understand.
There are some real responsibilities here which I think have been abrogated by this government and I think we are going to pay the price. As we go through this stage, and although I do not share the optimism of some of the commentators that this will be a short war, I think that one thing we have done in the western world, whether we have been involved with the fronts in Asia or whether we have been involved with the fronts in the Middle East, or South America or Central America, we have constantly analysed incorrectly the strength of people who are fighting nationalist fights or fights which they feel strongly about. For religious or historical or fights
January 17, 1991

they have had with others in the region, these battles, have always continued much longer and with much more devastation than we can imagine.
As we commit ourselves to this long battle, we must remember that we not only want to win the battle but we want to win the war. To use a cliche, we want the war's victory to be peace and we want to see peace settled throughout the Middle East. We want to preserve the integrity of many nations there. I know I share with other members, and I am sure they share with me the fear that we have that Israel will be drawn into the battle that it has neither asked for, nor provoked. Every member sitting there watching the television and understanding just how volatile the area immediately around Israel is with long-standing grievances can only hope that it is not drawn into this unfairly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order please. The hon. member's time has expired. He may only continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker. There is a responsibility among parliamentarians, however, to put on the table ideas to help a government to develop better foreign policy. May I suggest that, first, we take steps starting now to initiate public discussions for a more peaceful world by getting people to understand what is going on in the Middle East. Second, we should try to revitalize any added nations. Third, we should use those components of the NATO agreements to begin to work out political and social plans to involve Eastern Europe before that explodes on us. Fourth, we should develop a military policy which has as its basis the development of a peacemaking function in terms of acquisitions of equipment.
We are in this case right now where we can not respond with peacemaking because we have CF-18s and they do not have a peacemaking role. It does not matter where you are. Fifth, we should establish human rights as a part of our foreign policy. Sixth, we should develop regional plans for peace so that this does not happen again in places like Cambodia, the Philippines and Central America. Seventh, we should have a white paper for peace. Eighth, we should have a parliamentary
Government Orders
committee talking to Canadians about these issues. Ninth, perhaps most important, we should publicly recognize that war is a failure. To enter war is a failure of everything we stand for as a country. We should turn this around, take this failure and make it into a positive benefit by recommitting our country to a peaceful future.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things the member touched on that I just want to make a point or two on and possibly follow up with a question.
I was pleased to hear the member touch on collective action and the responsibilities of Canada under the charter of the United Nations to act collectively with the rest of the world. I am pleased that he recognizes that, and I am pleased that he recognizes the need for collective security in the world. I do not believe that we are too far apart on that sense of responsibility on behalf of Canada. I think I have quoted the member accurately on that.
One of the things I do want some clarification on, if possible, is this. He mentioned that we do have interests in the Middle East. Noting that he understands what those interests are, I noted that the member said that those interests are worth fighting for.
We have been told in a sense by the government, but I was hoping that he could tell us this morning what those interests are in his own terms and sense of what they might be.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadian interests in this case are tied into the development of a long term, peaceful plan for the Middle East. It is the one area of the world that, I guess since I was a student some 23 years ago, I have always worried about. It is the area that could blow up the world because of the combination of economic, historical and national and religious interests coming to converge in a very small area with an intensity that I think we in Canada do not appreciate.
The one principal organization we set up to work on that is the United Nations. One of the major tasks that the United Nations has to undertake is a more honest dealing with Middle East issues. There have been-some members in the House follow this very closely-several

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
resolutions in front of the United Nations which are left unresolved.
With our alliance stretching into Turkey through NATO, we have the commitment through its agreement to stabilize and protect that particular country.
There are other interests that I think are developing. There are economic interests. We have several private and public corporations very active in that region. There are trade interests at stake for us.
There is also a country in which symbolic importance much exceeds its physical size. There is the maintenance and the integrity of Israel and the resolution of the problems surrounding that state.
Those are the issues that I always think as being paramount to the interests of Canada, and I think it is through our international organizations and our commitment to the United Nations in particular that we can extend it. As a peacekeeping middle level power, we can show the world what some of those solutions might be.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, once again we see the importance of this debate. I would like to thank the hon. member. It is 4.20 a.m., and even at this early hour, members who are willing to think and reflect intelligently can make any kind of suggestions.
At the end of his speech which lasted no more than five minutes, the hon. member for Winnipeg-North-Centre, Mr. Walker-I would rather call people by their name-made a series of suggestions.

Yes, they have suggestions but that is what debate is all about. I will never live long enough now because of that debate. This is probably the third most important debate in my life here in Parliament over 27 years. It is serious. I do not want deal too long with the first one. That was the War Measures Act for which I voted with the very little information that I had. I say it in English, and I will say it in French. With the little information that I was given, I voted for it.
Of course, there was the constitutional debate. That is probably the reason why I am a Canadian and I am here, a Canadien frangais. What is my place here, what is my role? If it has not been for the question of war, I would have loved so much, I would have had so much better feeling as a Canadian, I would be a prouder Canadian being here these last two days. I do not think I missed one minute of the debate. I do not understand it. I was here at ten o'clock this morning. The Speaker was here. It is now the day after, at four o'clock, and there has not been any filibuster. I have listened to all kinds of unbelievable ideas, fresh ideas.
I do not want to assassinate people intellectually but I heard the same tones, as they say en frangais, sur le meme ton.

It is the same expression they support on the other side, while on this side we reflect the hesitations of Canadians.

I have heard friends, and I call them friends. They will stay my friends in the party that they proudly represent. They say: "Look, they are divided in the opposition". We are not divided. We are simply, emotionally, intellectually reflecting what is going on in the country, the hesitation of the people who are stuck between emotion, support for our Canadians. I will talk about that if I speak in this debate.
But I want to thank the hon. member. He was in Winnipeg all day. I could not believe it when I was told that he would fly back late tonight, Friday night, from Winnipeg. He asked permission to speak before me, if I do so, because he said "I want two hours of sleep" before returning to Winnipeg this morning.
This is personalizing a debate but I think Canadians should know that members of Parliament care. I do not mean to say by that that only this side now cares. I want Canadians to know we are human beings. We care. Those who are here care a hell of a lot. That does not mean that those who are not do not. But the debate is so important. It is Canada, Mon Canada. I will say that later, I hope.

That is why I am here, to listen to people like Mr. Walker.
January 17, 1991



I need to hear debate like that of Mr. Barrett this afternoon. Rarely do I have tears in my eyes, but when he said "I am a Jew, and here is what I think", it was difficult.
My colleague from Westmount has never been the kind of fine friend that I would think of when talking about the Middle East over the years. I could not believe his speech. I hope Canadians will read it. I will say that in French.

I hope Quebecers, men and women, will read Mr. Berger's speech. I do not want to flatter him, but such a speech must have been difficult to make.

It must have been very difficult for him to speak as he did. He is probably sleeping now, so he will have quite a shock tomorrow to hear what I said. But I mean it. I do, do mean it. That is what debate is all about on such an important issue, such an unbelievable issue.
We are not weak. We are not afraid on this side. We do not run away when we see a gun. Try to take me out of the House when there is a false alarm and you will see that I do not get weak too easily. I was in the provost corps, the Military Police, in Shilo, when I was very young.
We are not showing weakness by debating an issue of war and by defending peace groups. No, we are talking about human life. I thank the hon. member for coming back because,in a few minutes those who will read it will say: "Maybe half of it should be Canadian policy". I hope my colleague from the majority party will read all of the good proposals, keep some, reflect on others and reject out of hand those that are total dreams because later on I will talk to you about a dream that I had.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I must admit, along with some of the others in this debate, that I have had a little bit of difficulty in getting up to become involved in this debate. I feel a sense of frustration that in fact the decisions have already been made. Of course, the war has already been launched. What we are discussing here is almost after the fact. To some extent it makes parliamentarians look a bit foolish
Government Orders
that everything that had to be decided in order to proceed with the war has been decided.
But I think in the last little while, as the member for Saint-Denis has said, that there has been some interesting information come out, information perhaps that will not help Parliament to make a decision that has already been made but information that, hopefully, will lead to some discussion about Canada's role in the future and perhaps some analysis of what went into the decisions leading up to Canada's involvement with the United States and with the United Nations in the current war.
One of the things that excites me a little bit is the fact that the member from Saskatoon, after his speech and in response to a question and comment from the member for North Island-Powell River, indicated that there was a number in the members' lobby which citizens who are watching this debate all across the country could call and actually tell members who are present in the House tonight precisely what their feelings are. That number is 613-996-7446.
There have been numerous calls coming into the opposition lobby from citizens who have been watching this debate and, for the first time in my experience of 18 years as an elected member in the British Columbia legislature and in the House of Commons in Ottawa, I have almost got the feeling that there is a possibility that this could be an interactive Parliament, that the people of Canada who are watching us debate can actually give us information that will be helpful in the debate. I think, even at four o'clock in the morning, which is only one o'clock in the morning British Columbia time, these people can actually, in watching the debate, help us with information, give us their feelings and have an exchange of feelings with those people across Canada who are so interested in what is happening in the Middle East and in this Parliament that they are actually switching from the news channels to watch the debate here in the House of Commons because now they have an opportunity to interact with members and to tell members what they feel.
I received a call, just a few minutes ago, from Parks-ville, British Columbia, in my riding, from somebody who has a son on the Athabaskan in the war zone and who is absolutely opposed to the war and would like to see the Canadians out of the war zone. I want to say, for that person who called all the way from Parksville, that I really appreciate that call. I must admit, in coming into this debate, I felt that the decision had already been

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
made and that I, as a member of the House of Commons, was absolutely powerless. In fact, it makes you feel a bit foolish when the decision has already been made and all you have to do is simply ventilate a little bit about the position that is taken by the government.
In fact, I suppose I was one of thousands or millions of Canadians who watched the debate take place in the Senate and the House of Representatives in the United States knowing that those people speaking on the floor of the U.S. Congress had the power to decide whether their nation was to go to war in support of the Bush administration or whether their nation would not go to war. That power gives members of the House of Representatives and senators in the United States a greater feeling that they are playing an important role on behalf of their constituents in expressing their conscience and beliefs than we have here. It could have been done here. It was not necessary that the government come into this House of Commons with its mind already made up and simply allow members to ventilate, without listening to or respecting, their positions. To some extent, the government attempted to make fools of the members of the opposition. I think it was the wrong tact taken by the government in this case.
I have read a little bit of history in my time. I know that during periods of war, often the government will contact the opposition parties and attempt to establish a union cabinet or a union approach because of the need to pull the country together and to establish national unity at the time of war. As part of that comprehensive approach to unity, it approaches trade unions for example, that will become involved in the war production effort. They contact municipalities, banks, businesses and financial institutions, the efforts of which it is going to need in order to mobilize the country to prosecute a war.
In this case, as is traditional with this government, it did not even bother to contact the opposition to develop the question that we were going to be debating in this House. I looked at the question that was presented to us by the government as a fait accompli and the question says this: "That this House re-affirms its support of the United Nations in ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait." Nobody in this House could have any difference of opinion with a question like that. We want to support the United Nations. We want to support the
principles of the United Nations as set out in its charter. We are committed as a party and a country to do it. How can we possibly oppose a resolution like this? We are also committed to ending the aggression by Iraq against the country of Kuwait. How could anybody in this House possibly be opposed to that? That is not the reason that this question was placed on the floor of the House of Commons by the hon. Prime Minister.
The reason this was placed on the floor was for a political trap. Basically, this resolution will be interpreted by the government as opposition support for its efforts in the war against Iraq. I do not support the government's efforts in the war against Iraq. It was a wrong-headed decision made on the basis of wrong reasoning when other alternatives had not been exhausted. It is unfair for a Prime Minister to come into a House to present a resolution like this knowing that it is a resolution designed to entrap politically opposition members in this House into voting in a way they do not want to vote. It is manipulation and the kind of manipulation that we have seen far too often by this Prime Minister. It is the kind of manipulation that he himself boasted about when he was talking about delaying the First Ministers' Conference on the Meech Lake Accord until the last possible minute so that the First Ministers of this country would feel compelled by the passage of time to vote quickly to pass the Meech Lake Accord. I think the country rejected that kind of political manipulation. We certainly do not like to see, in an important situation like this, the opposition in this Parliament manipulated into voting for a resolution that is essentially a political trap.


Raymond John Skelly: Hear! hear!


Robert Evans Skelly: Now, I support those members who have stood up, including the leader of our political party. For example, the member for Fraser Valley West I think made an excellent presentation in this House, a compassionate, committed presentation, committed to peaceful resolution of disputes, both in the Middle East and around the world. But the problem is, that when you are presented with a question, and all of the parties in the House of Commons have not had an opportunity through a consultation process to develop, it is almost impossible to allow members on that basis to have a free vote. If you vote yes for this resolution, then the government is going to say you
January 17, 1991

support the war. If you vote no for this resolution, the government is going to say: "you are in favour of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait" or "you are opposed to supporting the men and women of our military forces overseas." And that is not true, but that is the option the government has in presenting this kind of a resolution to the House. I think it is demeaning to this Parliament, demeaning to the government, and unfortunately characteristic of this Prime Minister to present that kind of a resolution, as he did in the debate around the Meech Lake Accord.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, exactly what position I intend to take on this question, a question that to me, does not make any sense at all. If it comes to a vote I am still not sure how I am going to vote on it because the government can interpret my vote in any way it chooses. That is why we have this kind of a resolution.
But I want to tell you that I am absolutely opposed to Canada's participation in this war against Iraq. I do not think it is necessary. I think it is pursuing a United States' foreign policy, and I do not think that Canada should be involved in it. I am absolutely opposed to the use of Canadian forces in an offensive way against the Government of Iraq. That is not to say that I do not want Iraq out of Kuwait or that I support Iraq's aggression in Kuwait. What I am saying is that there were alternatives that we should have used and that we should have exhausted before we resorted to war.
I think that those alternatives would have been successful had they been given the opportunity. But other people-and I am thinking of George Bush and the U.S. administration-were motivated otherwise, and I think that has dictated how Canada has become involved in the war in Kuwait.
I agree with my leader that I think Canada's forces should be in the Middle East, but they should be in the Middle East serving ends other than the violent ends being pursued by the United States. I think we should be using our forces to contain the war zone so that the war does not expand. I think we should be assisting in the blockade of war material and other support going to Iraq through the Middle East so that Iraq is ultimately denied the ability to maintain its troops in Kuwait and to maintain a war against the allies there. I also believe that our troops and Canadian personnel should be used for
Government Orders
humanitarian purposes; to provide health, medical and refugee support to those civilians and others who are either injured or become casualties as a result of the war, or who become displaced from their homes as result of the destruction due to this war.
Canada has a tremendous and respected role to play in providing those kinds of humanitarian and support services to those who are injured, become casualties or refugees as a result of this war.
I think that represents the kind of traditional role Canada has played recently in wars around the world. I think that has generated for us a great deal of respect.
I had the opportunity to visit the United Nations as a parliamentary observer just a few months ago. This was an opportunity that I never thought of, growing up as a young child in New Westminster, British Columbia in a very poor family. I never believed that I would be sitting on the floor of the United Nations with delegations from all around the world discussing issues of world importance.
I was almost overwhelmed by the opportunity that was given to me as a member of this Parliament. I have a great deal of personal respect and lend a great deal of support to the United Nations.
For the government to come into the House and tell me as a member of the opposition that if I do not support its resolution, then for some reason I am opposed to the United Nations. I absolutely resent that kind of entrapment and gamesmanship with this resolution. It is absolutely false. I can speak not only for myself by that statement, but also for. . . whole of our caucus.
This caucus has supported the United Nations throughout the history of this political party and throughout the history of the United Nations.
That has not always been the case with some of our allies in the current war effort. For example, I want to talk about an incident that happened recently before the World Court. The Speaker will be aware of what is called the Contra scandal which brought to light the fact that the United States was providing, both legally under American law at times and under its own law at times, weapons, money, material and humanitarian aid to a group called the Contras that would not really exist

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
without the support of the United States government or its surrogates.
The World Court, back in 1986, heard a case advanced by Nicaragua that the United States was violating international law by supporting the Contras by printing booklets calling for psychological warfare and terrorism against Nicaraguan communities by providing the Contras with weapons with which to kill Nicaraguan civilians, and in fact in instruction manuals on psychological warfare and terrorism actually advocating the murder of non-combatant Nicaraguan citizens. The United States was violating the charter of the United Nations and was engaged in an act of aggression against Nicaragua.
The World Court ruled that by mining the harbours of the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua the United States again was not only violating the treaties it had with Nicaragua but was also in violation of the Geneva articles of war and the charter of the United Nations.
The United States has not been known in recent years, as recent as 1986, to be a supporter of the United Nations. Here, the government is telling us that we should side with the United Nations, and the United States in telling us how we should be giving great respect for the United Nations. I want to know where the Government of Canada was when those violations were taking place, when the United States was hauled before the World Court and found guilty of violating the United Nations charter and international law and participating in an act of aggression.
It is a country of 220 million that was engaged in an act of aggression against a country of 3.5 million people. Why was Canada not standing up on its hind feet? Why was it not seeking allies in the United Nations to prevent this kind of active aggression going on in Nicaragua, which had been identified and condemned by the World Court, an international body which Canada claims to support. Where was our support for the United Nations then?
One of the reasons why I feel almost ashamed as a legislator to be here at 4.45 in the morning talking about a resolution that is virtually redundant is that Canada has already gone to war along with the United States. We really do not have any power on behalf of our citizens.
I have had letters from my citizens all over my constituency saying that they absolutely oppose this war. I represent my citizens and yet can do absolutely nothing because the government has come into this House with its mind made up and members of this Parliament can do absolutely nothing to change its mind.
As I speak, there are two members of the government in the House, cabinet is asleep, and nobody is really listening to Canadians. That makes people like me frustrated.
But there is an opportunity for people to get in touch with this Parliament at this very hour. I would suggest that they call 613-996-7446 and they will reach the opposition lobby.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on a very effective speech, one that I know will be read and considered. I do not say that lightly or with humour. It raised some factual evidence about the performance of the United States in this world that certainly does no credit to its record and no credit to its support.
One of the things that the previous speaker mentioned was an alternate role for the Canadian Armed Forces. When the Americans finish bombing Iraq back to the stone age, and that the country lays in ruins, its government, administration, and infrastructure destroyed, there will be an enormous number of casualties, absolutely enormous.
But the day the bombing stops, the deaths will accelerate. They will accelerate from gastro-intestinal diseases. People will die from injuries suffered during the war. They will suffer from starvation, famine, disease and exposure. Their water systems will be gone. Their sewer systems will be gone. There will be toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes everywhere. Transportation systems will be destroyed. Throughout their cities there will be dangerous buildings damaged by war. What we need to do is to think seriously about the use of the Canadian Armed Forces who have tremendous expertise, medical corps who can offer treatment to civilian and military casualties. They can treat famine and disease through some of the public health techniques that they have. They can deliver community health care. Women are still going to be pregnant and have babies, people are
January 17, 1991

still going to be suffering from diseases and will need the distribution of antibiotics, medicines and surgery.
We could put a corps of engineers in there to destroy the dangerous and damaged buildings. We could restore transportation systems so that the sick, the injured and the destitute can be brought to medical treatment and to places for shelter and food. We could restore electricity, so that pumps could be run to remove sewage and provide water. We could look into damaged sewer systems, water systems, communications so that the population can gradually be reorganized to protect and provide for itself.
Transportation units out of Trenton, Comox or Cold Lake could provide stores that we already have in place of medicines, food, fuel, shelter and clothing. Many of the people will die of exposure. We think of it as always a hot country, but it is not so.
Our Canadian Armed Forces have stores available and the opportunity to prevent starvation, to prevent death from the simplest diseases of infants and young children, to provide just basic antibiotics that will save more lives than probably anything else. They are ready and competent to deliver those stores, but unfortunately this government has not for one moment considered that.
What lies ahead when this wreckage is finished is the possibility of even more deaths from simple matters of disease and lack of attention, food, clothing, shelter and medicine. Our Armed Forces are far better equipped to deliver that than to make war. Yet in the briefing the other day the two individuals who came forward to give our caucus information said our Armed Forces are not giving consideration to that.
If we are not in there the day the bombs stop dropping, people will begin to die at an accelerating rate. It is going to take money, resources and planning to get in place. I would ask why the Prime Minister, why the Minister of National Health and Welfare and why the Minister of National Defence are not giving this House information about what responsibility we intend to take the day the
Government Orders
bombing stops and when the money and resources are going to be put aside.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for posing those alternatives. It is something that this caucus is concerned about and that the opposition is concerned about. Even as World War II drew to a close, and other previous wars drew to a close, the allies, before and during the war, had some ideas meetings to determine exactly what was going to happen when peace was ultimately restored; who was going to have responsibility for rebuilding the destruction that had been done who was going to have the responsibility for the medical reparations that were going to be required because of the injuries and the losses in particular populations what kind of economic reconstruction was going to take place, who was going to deal with restoring the populations to the economic health that it had before.
I think those discussions have not commenced by the participants in this war and they should certainly commence. I congratulate the member for some of the suggestions he has made so far.
Along the same lines, we should be looking at the future role of Canada's Armed Forces and Canada's military power because I think many Canadians, having seen what has happened in the Middle East, never want to see Canada's military play this kind of role again.
There has been a number of peaceful roles suggested, the role that we traditionally follow in the United Nations as peacekeepers to separate combatants and to restore a peaceful existence between conflicting nations.
I think the Canadian Armed Forces could be used for other purposes. They are already used to some extent off the west coast to watch for oil spills and that kind of thing, and to become involved in the protection of the environment which will be a major concern for the next 10 years. I-think our Armed Forces could be allocated, for example, to help Africa with its elephant poaching problem. That species is under the threat of extinction because those who are going after that species are better armed than the wardens in the national parks in Africa.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Why are our Armed Forces not offered to that country to beef up the park warden system so that they can protect a declining species? If action is not taken quickly, that species will be wiped out. Why are they not offered to protect the kind of damage that is being done in the rain forests in southeast Asia and in central South America? I think our Armed Forces could be used internally in some countries as police to assist in the maintaining of the natural environment. If we do not protect those elements of the natural environment, then all life on earth could be threatened.
If the Speaker will give me one final moment, I can recall reading a statement by Physicians for Social Responsibility that said there is something like 10 million cases of malaria in the world today, 1 million new cases are developed each year and 1 million people die of malaria each year. We could cure malaria. The cure is now available if we allocated what we spend on arms around the world in the space of two weeks. I think that the Government of Canada should make a commitment to stop spending on military purposes for two weeks and contribute that to an international pool because more people now are now dying of malaria than are dying in wars. They are the true victims of the next war. If we set aside that money and dedicated it to a cure for such diseases as malaria, I think we could save more lives than any other thing we could possibly do. I think Canada should commit itself to that kind of action world-wide which I think will be valuable to people of this generation and to future generations.


Raymond John Skelly: It is a
pleasure on behalf of the New Democratic Party Caucus to rise in this Elouse to contribute to the debate. I would like to remind citizens of this country who are concerned about what this has done that there is a telephone number in the lobby here so that they can convey their thoughts to a member of Parliament. I urge them to call 613-996-7446. There are things that citizens must do in order to offset what the government has done so please call.
There are four short questions that I would like to deal with tonight and they are questions that Canadians are asking. How did we get into this mess? How do we get out of the mess? How do we prevent this situation in the future? What should be Canada's role in the future? How did we get into this mess? Without dwelling too long, this government has basically found it necessary to obligate itself completely to the United States.
A great deal of time has been spent by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and members of the Conservative caucus on how great the Americans are as a trading partner with Canada. Many of us have relatives in the United States and very friendly ties with the people of the United States. Very often over this century the United States has taken a tactic in its foreign affairs that is completely abhorrent to what most Canadians believe to be correct.
But the Prime Minister, for whatever reasons, has decided not only to work with the United States, but to obligate himself in a very unhealthy and unwholesome way. That is the reason we are into war. There are those of us who believe that this special relationship must be paid for. Canada has a trade agreement with the United States and whether you agree with it or not, this government was absolutely committed to it. To maintain it I am sure that James Baker told the Prime Minister the night he arrived that: "if you wish to maintain that you will not only back us politically in the international attack on Iraq but you will in fact get blood on your hands." That was the price. It may have been even more. The fact that we can join the United States and Mexico at the table talking about an agreement may in fact be the price. There may be more that will be announced later. But unfortunately, this Prime Minister and this government have attempted to place Canada in a very subservient obligated role to the United States in this very disastrous act.
The Prime Minister and the government do not enjoy the confidence of Canadians. Eighty-eight per cent of Canadians continuously express disfavour with this government, no confidence. Fifty-five per cent of Canadians on the January 7 wanted no action for Canadians in a war against Iraq. That number is growing. The feeling is stronger and stronger. I am sure, now that Canadian Armed Forces have been committed to attacks on the Iraqi population, that number will grow astronomically. There will be no glory for this government, no glory for this Prime Minister or this country in the acts that are done. Canadian citizens will not support it. There has been a lot of talk about the Canadian Armed Forces. We, on this side of the House, feel that the Canadian Armed Forces need to be supported. They have been placed in an extremely precarious position. Many of us feel that that position is not morally right and that in fact we feel the best kind of support for them and for their families is to withdraw immediately. This is not our war. This is not
January 17, 1991

our kind of action. Our Armed Forces have a far better role to play.
How do we get out of this war? Many Canadians are asking that question on the phones tonight. The government has to attempted to rationalize to the people of Canada in as strong a voice as it can-every member of cabinet, the Prime Minister, and every other member who has spoken in this House-why we need to join with the United States and attack Iraq, why we have to commit our Armed Forces in an offensive way to kill Iraqis. The rationale is extremely weak.
There are probably now close to two billion people, with the assets of almost all of the developed world aimed at a nation of 17 million people. The sanctions would have stifled them. The price of rice is $42 a kilogram and rising. It has gone up 90 times. Soon Iraqis will not be able to eat if those conditions continue. Certainly, their armed forces could not continue. The production of oil and the obtaining foreign currency would be virtually impossible.
How do we get out of it? We simply ask the Prime Minister to end Canadian involvement in the war, to withdraw the troops from actively attacking Iraqis.
My colleague from Comox-Alberni made a very reasoned suggestion that the government could use the troops that are there for containment. Why allow an attack outside the borders of Iraq? Why not contain the theatre of war? That is a reasonable suggestion and a reasonable role. We have effective, well trained members.
I am very upset that this government and our Armed Forces have not begun planning for the mission to take place as soon as the bombs stop and the guns go silent. What about our involvement in rescue and reconstruction? More people could likely die in the aftermath of the war with the chaos, the disease, the lack of sustenance, and the exposure that could happen. We have the talent, the capability, and the resources within our Armed Forces to deliver enormous aid. Down the road, Iraqis may in fact see us as friends again and trust us if we were to play that role. We may be individuals who are
Government Orders
welcomed as citizens of the world in that part of the world if we offer a helping hand.
That is not going on right now. That has been confirmed by the Armed Forces. I would honestly like to hear the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of National Defence saying that they have heard messages from the opposition and have plans in place for rescue and reconstruction the minute the bombs stop. We will join with Japan and other nations committed to that route as their contribution in this very unfortunate conflict.
What do we do to prevent this situation? How do we get out of the war? I am more and more convinced that we cannot do anything more in this House of Commons. The motion, as has been pointed out, is now irrelevant. The debate has largely been members thinking on their feet of what can be done.
Many people in this House have come to some conclusions. There is no point in having a vote. There is no point in continuing the debate much longer. The government has made up its mind and the opposition has made up its mind. The citizens of Canada can find a vehicle. Peace groups, church groups, labour and business organizations, and community support groups can join together in a committee to stop the war at a local level, at regional level, and at the national level. Such a committee representing the entire community can approach the government and the Prime Minister and place enormous political pressure asking the government to end Canadian involvement but not stop there. Ending Canadian involvement means becoming reinvolved in the traditional way that Canadians have been involved before and reorganizing the approach of the Armed Forces to rescue, rehabilitation and construction. We can also become involved in containment, the blockade, and the sanctions as a continuing measure until a peace treaty and co-operation can be developed. Many roles can be played, other than an offensive attack on the Iraqi people.
Such a committee to end the war in Canada can then extend its efforts to assist committees in the United States to stop George Bush and stop the American armed forces from bombing this country back into the stone age and from the enormous casualties that will accrue from a land war in that country. A committee to stop the war can spread out to smaller countries or other

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
medium sized countries such as the Nordic countries. They are not in this combat, killing Iraqis. They are looking at offering far more constructive ideas than Canada. It could discuss joining with those nations and asking them to co-operate in stopping the war.
This could happen on a much broader scale. If and when that war stops, when Canada makes a nobler contribution than we make today, the committee could become involved in attempting to motivate politically whoever forms this government and the next government that follows to prevent Canada from having dirty hands in this business. We are a substantial seller of arms and equipment in the world, which sustains armed forces of governments that are absolutely abhorrent to our way of life.
What is going on in Central America is completely disgusting. We should be influencing the United States to try to clean its hands of the blood it has gathered there over the years. El Salvador involved 80,000 people. In Guatemala, in Honduras, and throughout Latin America the CIA has operated for years, supporting dictators, supporting torture, supporting death squads. There has been enormous devastation. Very rarely do we hear a critical word on the government side of the House concerning that issue.
Canada's committee should stop this war and look at stopping future wars. Canada should not have dirty hands. We should never again get involved in attacking somebody. Down the road, we should look at how we can enhance our contribution to making this a safer and a more humanitarian world in which to live. That would be the image and the face that Canada should present to the world.
On the issue of sanctions and collective security, it strikes me that Canada has become an expert in the area of peacekeeping. Canadian Armed Forces members have placed themselves in a dangerous position between belligerents. Over the years, they have become experts in monitoring the flow of arms and in winning the confidence of both sides so both sides would accept the peacekeeping responsibility.
Maybe we will have to move into a new generation of contribution to the world community. I think we have the talent, the commitment, the courage, and the expertise to do that. In the business of sanctions, an interesting role for Canada would be to develop, through our diplomatic channels and the use of our Canadian Armed
Forces, mechanisms to enhance the use of sanctions. When we have a peacekeeping situation, we cannot get in between belligerents in a hot war, but once they decide they want to stop shooting and they need a neutral force to stabilize the area, possibly an unarmed force to stabilize the area, Canadians are able to execute those diplomatically, maintain the diplomatic context in which that must happen, separate the belligerents, stop arms flow, and generally contribute in a very positive way.
If we were to do the same thing with sanctions, we should encourage nations around the boundary of a country that has had sanctions imposed on it to co-operate in support of the world community. With our diplomatic initiatives, if we are trusted and we are seen as a nation that can be trusted, we may in fact be able to win the co-operation which the United States, Israel or other nations with blood on their hands cannot do. We may be able to do that.
We can develop the expertise for monitoring the flow of goods on which there is an attempted interdiction. We could develop those techniques and develop expertise in making sanctions work so that nations do not have to resort to armed forces. Outlaw nations could be brought to the table before there is a resort to massive bloodshed.
The role that Canadians could play, not only in peacekeeping, could be a very forward looking one in which Canadians could become experts at operating sanctions. Canada is a trusted nation, a nation without blood on its hands and without an axe to grind but with a major history of contribution to the world community behind it. Canada has a willingness to foster peace and the friendship of nations through means other than resorting to violence.
Perhaps I would like to apologize to the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte for the disruptions I caused in the points of order at the beginning of the evening. I think it was an expression of the kinds of frustrations that have developed here. I regret that. Over the course of the evening I have appreciated the contributions of all colleagues who have spoken. The thinking on their feet by everyone here has left us with a fresh crop of constructive ideas to use in going forward. We felt frustration over the difficulty of this government in giving credence to the opposition in any way, shape, or
January 17, 1991

form. Certainly it has had a great deal of difficulty in terms of any modification of its position.
I accept that it has taken the decision to attack Iraq. It is going to defend it to the end of its caucus, and that is fine. It is over. There is no point in a debate continuing on this motion or a vote. I think we in the opposition have to move forward together, bind Canadians together, and pressure the government to politically change its position.
It has been a very useful exercise and one that will lead to something very positive.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen -Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I came into this House somewhat despondent, depressed, saddened, and sickened by what was happening in the world today.
Over the last half hour or so, since the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn gave out the phone number of the opposition lobby, I have been involved finally in participatory democracy. I have been thrilled to be able to talk to people from all across Canada who are phoning in, on their dime, to tell us as parliamentarians what they think.
I would like to give them a voice right now in the House of Commons before I start into my remarks. I spoke to a gentleman from Calgary, Alberta who said he was still up and thrilled to watch the debates in the House of Commons, especially the members of the opposition. He was disappointed in the government's position, but he said that because of what he had heard from the members of the opposition he had confidence in Canada. He thought members of the opposition were showing a good deal of leadership in this debate.
I took a call from a woman from Victoria who said there were three in her family who were totally disheartened. She said it was a damned shame that Canada was in this war.
A gentleman from Tillsonburg, Ontario, said that he was frustrated members of Parliament were forced to toe party lines. He wished people in Canada could have a say. I am pleased to give him that opportunity today to have his say in the House of Commons.
Government Orders
Further, I took a call from a gentleman in Montreal who said he was disheartened by the government's approach to the Middle East situation and that he was sickened by the whole thing. I share that with him.
Before I go on to the next person, I would like to give that number out again. It is 613-996-7446. We have members of Parliament waiting on the lines to take calls.
Another person from Vancouver phoned and said that his position was that we should remain as non-aggressive, that we had to stay in the area and remain in a role of aiding, not in a role of attacking.
A woman from Toronto said that she was opposed to the Canadians being in the gulf and getting involved in the war. She felt and wished that they were peacemakers.
A woman just phoned me prior to my coming into the House from Calgary, Alberta. She said that she had not been able to sleep since this war started. She is worried about Canada being in the war. She said tonight that before her grandchildren went to bed they lit candles lor peace. She would like us to reach that peace, a lasting peace.
Those are some of the comments of people from across Canada. That number again is 613-996-7446. We appreciate the calls from across Canada.
The motion before the House should be set out in my remarks. Once again, it is:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
Let us not make any mistake about what we are in fact debating in this House of Commons right now. We are debating whether Canada should be involved in the war in the Middle East. We are debating whether Canada should be taking an aggressive role in that war. That is what we are debating.
There is no doubt about it. Every member in this House of Commons and people across Canada have always supported the United Nations in its peacekeeping role. Over the last 45 years we in Canada have been proud of our Canadian forces and their role in the United Nations and in the world as peacekeepers and peacemakers. That has changed now, as of a couple of days ago, with Canada's role in the Middle East.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
That is very disappointing to me. I was born just prior to the end of the Second World War and I have watched Canada build that reputation. I remember being in the United Nations Club when I was in high school and hearing guest speakers talk about the sleeping giant on the world scene. That was prior to the days, or around the time, I suppose, when Lester Pearson won his Nobel Peace Prize for his initiatives in the Middle East, in the Suez Canal crisis. I thought, as a young Canadian, that I could be proud of my country taking that position. This was a position that all Canadians could be proud of. All of our military and service people could be proud of their part in the world or global scene.
I was greatly saddened when I heard the sabre-rattling of the Bush administration and within hours I heard the sabre-rattling of our own government. That was not the Canada that I knew. That was not the Canada that I had become proud to be a part of. That was not a Canada that the people in my riding were telling me that they were proud of. Taking such an aggressive role in a military situation was totally foreign to me as a person born and raised in Canada. I was unused to that role. I still feel very uncomfortable with the role of Canada as an attacking nation. It is a role that I feel is untenable to all of us as Canadians.
Just prior to Christmas I visited a number of classrooms throughout the riding of Okanagan-Similka-meen-Merritt, in Penticton, Oliver, Osoyoos, from grade 5 right up to grade 12. At that stage I was being asked questions such as the following ones. Why are we doing this? Are we going to be drafted? Is this going to lead to a third world war? What will be left of the world? Will they use the atomic bomb?
We have been told that we are fear-mongers for even talking about this, but these implements of war are present in the world. We would be ostriches with our heads in the sand if we did not approach and answer the questions. I wish I had the answers. I wish I could assure these children that there would not be a major conflagration, that this is a very localized war. I wish I believed that myself, but I fear greatly for all the world when I see the type of weaponry involved in this conflict and watch what has happened in Iraq and in Israel over the last couple of days.
The fire power is there to destroy the world we know. I cannot make light of that. I do not want to have a part in that. I want to go back to a world in which I can feel comfortable raising my two daughters. When I leave home to return to Ottawa and have a 12-year old ask me if there is some other way than flying, it touches me in a small way, but that small way is substantially smaller than how it is touching the people who are actually present in the conflict in the Middle East. Can we imagine what it is like being in Baghdad right now or Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, not knowing what is going to happen, not knowing whether in fact there is going to be chemicals and chemical warfare? My heart goes out to the people who are involved in this conflict.
I am not the only one who is concerned. Prior to the recent situation I received a number of letters and a number of calls. By far the majority of them, as with the calls I have earlier read into my remarks, is against a position of aggression by Canada.
The resolution sent to the Prime Minister by the city of Grand Forks, in the boundary country in my riding, says a lot of how the people in my riding think. I will read it into the record:
The council for the city of Grand Forks unanimously pass the following resolution:
Bearing in mind Canada's traditional policy of supporting the United Nations and cognizant of Canada's international reputation as a peacekeeper and aware of our responsibilities regarding the welfare and security of our citizenry as municipal legislators, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Grand Forks in open meeting assembled beseeches the government of the Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to exercise patience and restraint with respect to the commitment of Canadian forces to the current conflict in the Persian Gulf and urges the Government of Canada to spare no effort to effect a peaceful resolution of the present crisis and to establish, within the framework of the United Nations, lasting peace, justice and security in the region.
On behalf of the citizens of Grand Forks, their mayor takes the opportunity to urge the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to consider this community's position regarding the role of the Canadian forces in the Persian Gulf. Some of the remarks and the resolution of the city of Grand Forks are reflected in some of the letters I have received. A letter from North Vancouver reads:
Please consider, before committing Canada to war, evety other possible censure and weapon against Hussein. So far, my impression of the international military response is that this is some form of military party, that no wants wants to miss.
January 17, 1991

He goes on in another paragraph and says:
Don't let the majority of Parliament rubber stamp the decision without honest debate; our Parliament has been (almost unanimously) tragically wrong in the past. On February 25,1941, Angus Maclnnis was the only MP to speak out against repressive measures against the Japanese. And we ail know how wrong that decision was.
A woman from Summerland, British Columbia in my riding, writes:
I am an old woman and have lived through two terrible world wars, but realize that they were very small as compared with what will happen if we keep on this ridiculous way of dealing with the present situation.
A letter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs from Kaleden, British Columbia in my riding, reads:
It is time our leaders realized that Canada is in a position to be a peace negotiator. We do not always have to follow the lead of the United States. We can be the country that leads towards finding creative, non-destructive methods to solve our differences. We can be the country that finds a peaceful end to this crisis.
I echo the words spoken by this couple in Kaleden, British Columbia. I agree that we can be that catalyst which brings about peace if we have the will.
In further remarks from a woman in Penticton, she states:
Rather than be pushed by the United States to the brink of war, cannot we take the lead in striving for a peaceful solution? Canada has always gained world-wide respect as a peace seeking nation.
In the final paragraph she says:
There must be a solution to solving world crises other than by going to war, resulting in the death of thousands of innocent people and leaving to mourn countless parents, widows and fatherless children.
Finally, the Penticton United Church of Canada has written a letter to the Prime Minister. I would like to read part of it. It indicates:
Should war take place, the innocent civilian population, from infants to elders, will be subjected to mass slaughter. Those who survive will live through miseries we can barely imagine, in a land laid waste. Are we willing to deal with the increasing flood of refugees, physically or mentally maimed, that would result? If we support war, we must also take responsibility for the results of war. We do not believe our government has considered this.
When we watch or listen to the media, we realize that a "war fever" has been building. The almost hysterical reaction of many is not only terrifying, but shows we have learned little from the past. Painting war in glorious colours has not yet been replaced by sober consideration. What would we be defending here? Certainly not democracy. And no nation should risk a bloody altercation over the availability of oil and gasoline.
Government Orders
Because of modern weaponry, including chemical and nuclear attack, war, no matter how limited to start with, has terrifying potential to engulf all nations and perhaps the planet itself. War has become obsolete as an acceptable method of settling international disputes.
He beseeches the Prime Minister and urges that the government reconsider its strategy and press for peace by all possible alternative action.
These remarks of various people throughout the province of British Columbia, mainly within my riding, are ones that I could not have written better. That is why I have chosen to give those people a voice within Parliament tonight, as I have tried to give to the people who have phoned in a voice. I will tell the people who have been trying to phone in to keep up their calls. If there is no answer when they call, we ask them to keep calling. The number again is 613-996-7446.
To Shirly McKee from Penticton, I appreciate your call of support earlier this evening. We do appreciate those calls from all of you letting us know what your thoughts are on this most important matter and to give you, the people of Canada, a voice in the House of Commons through us, the members of the New Democratic Party. So keep the calls coming.
I would just like to wind up with a couple of extra comments that bring home to me why Canada should pursue, together with the United Nations, some common solutions to this conflict through international diplomatic co-operation. The Government of Canada must take the necessary steps to promote an international peace conference on the Middle East to start achieving common security. Without that common security we have little hope for the security of our children into the future. Most of all, that is what I want. I want to leave Parliament at the end of my term knowing that I have not failed as a politician, that I have not been part of leading this country into a conflagration. I want to be able to say that I have had a part in creating world-wide peace.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, at 5.30 in the morning, Eastern Standard Time, I had managed to catch a few winks during the night while the other eye was switching between the parliamentary channel and the news channel in an

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
attempt to keep track of the events unfolding in the wee small hours of the morning.
Certainly, the news from the last few hours has been more than a little distressing. I could not help but think what is taking place is not really surprising, because once the genie is out of the bottle, then no one is in control. The politicians are not in control. The generals are not in control. The people are not in control. No one is in control; everything is out of control.
Once Saddam Hussein let the genie out of the bottle in August last year and once George Bush and the coalition made the decision to open active hostilities a few days ago and commence their action, the genie was released once again. So now we have two genies floating around and the situation is doubly out of control.
With the second launching of missiles towards the State of Israel, we are all waiting with bated breath. There is little we can do but wait to see if the remarkable restraint shown by that state last night can be repeated. I think the preponderance of opinion is that it is not likely to be able to show that same degree of restraint again for a multitude of reasons.
If that should happen, the hostilities that now exist between the partners of the coalition on one side and the State of Iraq on the other may well be twisted, turned, and broadened so that some of the allies become opponents and a set of factors move and take on their own momentum, which may result in a conflagration covering the entire Middle East area of a nature that all of us, throughout the world, must surely shudder to consider. That is what happens once the genie is out of the bottle.
In the debate that has taken place over the last few days and certainly in the hours of last night and this morning, a few thoughts struck me. One is that we cannot pretend that what has happened has not happened. Whatever our recollection and interpretation of history, we cannot rewrite it and we cannot change it. We have to start from where we are; we cannot go back and try again, as much as we would like to. So while we may wish to recall certain events to see what we can learn from our mistakes, in order to try not to repeat them in the future, we cannot change them. We are still making
mistakes but maybe it is not too late to correct some of them.
It is said by some that Saddam Hussein is a madman, a lunatic. That has been repeated many times in this House. Maybe he is, but, unfortunately, his is not a unique kind of lunacy. I am sure that a number of members will recall the lunatic theory espoused by Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon in Mr. Kissinger's book on Vietnam and Cambodia. The theory was, and I will just try to paraphrase it briefly, that if you persuade your enemy that you are a lunatic or will act in a lunatic manner without regard to consequences, then your opponent may fail to put you to the test out of fear of an irrational or lunatic response and then you win. Was Heniy Kissinger a lunatic? Was Richard Nixon a lunatic? Is Saddam Hussein a lunatic?
It is like the allegorical story that was repeated on television a few weeks ago by David Suzuki, the story of two drivers playing chicken. If you really want to win, the story went, you throw away your steering wheel and destroy your brakes. The theory is, when the other guy knows you cannot turn away, he will chicken out and you will win the game. The catch is, what happens if your opponent does not know or does not believe or, even worse, he has thrown away his steering wheel as well. We know what will happen and it just did. It happened on August 2,1990 and it happened again this January. There are no winners and depending on what happens in the next few hours, we may all be losers and very serious losers.
I listened with a great deal of interest to some of the debate tonight, and one of the lines I wanted to pursue was pursued in a great deal of depth by a colleague not of my own party, the member of Parliament for Ottawa South. It was a very well developed argument on the changing nature of power structures in the world today and the lessons that we, perhaps, ought to draw from them. I am not going to go on at length. I would recommend to anybody in the nation that his remarks were very much worth reading.
One of the phrases he used concerning the current situation and the current action undertaken a few days ago was, and I think I am quoting him correctly: "The wrong action at the wrong time by the wrong force." That was at 10.15 last evening Eastern Standard Time. One of the things that concerns me, because of the way things were done a few days ago, is that we have wasted an opportunity to do things right. We could have set up a
January 17, 1991

United Nations operation and command in a way and a manner that would pave the way for effective and acceptable peacekeeping and peacemaking in the post cold war world. The checks and balances of the balance of terror are gone. While it makes many of us very uncomfortable I am also glad that they are gone.
I am sure many Canadians will recall the days in 1962 when those of us who were leaving work on a particular evening when the threats of the Cuba missile crisis were heavy, said goodbye to each other in a different way than we usually do because none of us knew if we were going to be coming back the next morning. The buses home after work that day were very silent. The difference is that most of us in most of the world are reasonably assured that whatever happens, most of us will be seeing each other the next day and that is refreshing. There are no longer two people in the world with their fingers on the big button. That, in itself, presents new and very real dangers.
We must begin to construct new mechanisms, hopefully through the United Nations, which can deal with matters of aggression and major violations of human rights and national rights. The world is dominated by a single superpower which has not demonstrated that it is the most responsible force on the face of this earth. This is little if any more acceptable or welcome than the regime of the balance of terror from which we are now emerging.
A lot of silly things has been said in this debate on both sides of the House. I hope I will not add to their number. The present conflict did not start in January of this year. It started last August. There are members on both sides of the House who appear to sound so virtuous and self-righteous that all they do is enrage others and increase the level of mutual intolerance of which there is enough already, both here in Canada and throughout the world.
The motion before us reads:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
The New Democratic Party asks that this be a free vote for very good and valid reasons. The government said no but it is free for us. The government and its spokesper-
Govemment Orders
son have made it clear that it would interpret a yes vote as support for their policy and that I cannot support, and it is not a cop-out. But neither can I vote against a motion that says what this motion actually says. That only leaves me one other option and that is to abstain. That is not something I care to do. But because of what I regard as the mischievous attempt to manipulate this House of Commons by this kind of phraseology and this kind of interpretation, it leaves me no other course.
However imperfect the design of the current United Nations sanctioned policy is, the only hope for the future lies in a subsequent formation, perhaps for later conflicts, of a permanent UN command that can act reasonably quickly in later phases of this conflict or, more likely, in future actual or potential conflicts. That is the only hope for freedom, justice and peace in the single superpower world in which we are now located for better or worse.
I do not kid myself that a single superpower will agree to be bound by the same rules that apply to the rest of us any more than these rules applied to two superpowers. That is not the way superpowers behave. We have to work slowly and methodically to expand the application and acceptance of this kind of genuine international action because international action must be governed and managed. It must not be merely international in name or it will never be accepted and will never be effective over the long haul. That is the only hope for the future and we have to start now.
The conflict in which we have been engaged since last August and since early this week is a tragedy. We can only hope that it will be brought to a conclusion soon without a wider war and with a minimum loss of life on the part of all concerned. We must move soon to bring the nations of the Middle East to the peace conference table and work to construct stable and secure nations and stable and secure boundaries in that area.
Any of us who lived through the period of the last 40 or 50 years recognize that the Jewish people in the State of Israel had to have a homeland. But because of the duplicity of the British war office and the British foreign office in the early part of this century when the same lands were promised to two different peoples, we have had a continuing problem that is a running sore which

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
threatens the peace not only of that region, but of the world.
Any of us who witnessed the events prior to and during World War II will know that we in Canada as well as the rest of the world are guilty. When Jewish people from Germany and Europe were attempting to find a place to go, we all shut our doors. Their desire and necessity for a homeland was understandable.
No matter how evil the State of Israel has acted on many occasions in recent years-and it has, despite some of their origins and despite some of the earlier beliefs, they have adopted many of the same ethics and practices that their oppressors practised during World War II upon them. We still have to understand what made them what they are. We must also find some way that the Palestinians can be secure in a homeland of their own, while allowing some secure and stable boundaries of at least the original State of Israel. We must begin to build a Middle East that has something of lasting value. We must have some hope that that region will not tear itself apart to the detriment of all of us. As there often are in the world there are two rights and two wrongs. We must take the opportunity that surely will come when this immediate conflict concludes to assist in drawing all the parties together and provide whatever assistance and assurances we can to try to build some long-term security for all of the peoples of the Middle East.
We heard the remarks of the member for Saint-Denis earlier today. They were passionate, serious and deserved an audience. I trust that when he makes his major address he will repeat some of them. I also listened to the former premier of British Columbia, the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Like the member for Saint-Denis, I was impressed by the obvious feeling and the knowledge of that member as he attempted to describe some of the events that had taken place and some of his hopes and his fears for that region and for the world.
This is not a simple issue and I have never pretended to have all the answers. I hope I know some of the right questions. But I am sure the people of this country are committed to attempting to build an international world order and international mechanisms that can be trusted and can be respected. I only hope that the actions which this government has been a party to over the period of the last few weeks and months will not prevent us and
the rest of the world from constructing such a mechanism. That is my hope and my prayer. I am sure that the majority of the people of my own area and I hope the majority of the people of Canada will agree with me on it.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, it is approaching six o'clock in the morning. Some of us have been here since ten o'clock yesterday morning. I feel more vigorous than if I just got up.
I have been here 27 years. I do not consider this a Conservative issue. It is not an NDP issue. It is not a Liberal issue. I will say in English and French it is not a Quebec issue. I am Catholic, a strong believer, but this is not a Catholic issue. This is a moral issue. I never believed that after 27 years in this House people would start to understand. I really liked what the hon. member has just said. It prompts me to make a short comment. At long last we are addressing the real issue. We are going back to the causes of the problem of today.
I will repeat again, even to the point of maybe embarrassing my friend and colleague from British Columbia, the member for Epquimalt-Jean de Fuca. He is not in my party. He does not speak my language. He is not from my religion. Yet he made an unbelievably moving speech. He asks what is wrong. It was a very ordinary speech. It was not because it was important, a deeply felt speech.
When we want to solve a problem, it is not enough to govern.

You have to anticipate. You have to have vision. You cannot push people around. You cannot humiliate them. You cannot torture them and expect them to take it forever. However, it would be so easy.

That is what the member is prompting me to say. It would be so easy. I do not understand. People see it as so difficult, and I see it as so easy. I must be at fault. I must be totally wrong. I see it as an easy way. It is a question of respecting people regardless of skin colour, religion, rich and poor, black or anything. Just as long as you breath.
We are all the sons and daughters of the same God, because there is a God. That God today is looking at us and saying: "They are my children. Are they not intelligent enough to make peace with each other instead of
January 17, 1991

killing each other? Are we so deprived of grey matter that we are totally unable to find solutions?
I want to thank the member because I do not feel alone any more when I talk about the Palestinians, and peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I have given 26 years of my life to conferences. In my party, I have been pushed and pressured. The pressure is still going on at this late hour this morning to ask us to vote in favour of this motion.
The pressure is by powerful people I respect, but I do not give in easily and I will not. I hope my colleagues will reflect. We will listen to the other speeches, but I really am so full of energy suddenly because I see so many people who realize that yes, maybe we should have paid more attention to that part of the world.
It could be exploding. The news is not good. It will not be a macho Stallone style of war where we go in, clean up and that is it. No. The hate is profound. I do not want Canada to be hated. We have no reason to be hated, because people love us. They think of us in ways that even we do not know ourselves. We should kiss the floor everywhere we go in this country of ours.
Everybody likes Canada. Sometimes I really wonder if we deserve it.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, again I find myself for about the third or fourth time in the last 15 hours touched by the comments of the member.
It is not necessarily germane to this particular debate that we have tonight, but I just want to say that it does renew one's faith in this business in which we are engaged to see someone who has been involved for as many years-I say that in a respectful way-as the hon. member for Saint-Denis. He still has that degree of enthusiasm, commitment and belief that something can be done. It is a business that sometimes increases the level of cynicism-it is almost certain to-but to maintain that degree of passion and commitment is something welcome to behold.
Leaving that aside, the one further comment I would like to add to what I have already said is that there are many things I did not say because my colleagues and other members touched on them, particularly the reputation of that great superpower to our south. I do not
Government Orders
feel comfortable in that kind of single superpower world any more than I did in the two superpower world that preceded it.
Even though I am uncomfortable with that, the evil that was done by one nation to another last August, the occupation of Kuwait, and what happened in Kuwait since that invasion and that transgression, the catalogue of infamy that took place in Kuwait, as recorded by Amnesty International and other observers, almost made the record of the Nazi invasion and occupation of Denmark-a history with which I am somewhat acquainted-pale in significance. That was a civilized invasion and occupation compared to what happened there. I cannot forgive that, but neither can I forgive an action that threatens to blow up that whole area and cause it to move back into the dark ages and remove perhaps any chance we have to reconstruct a stable, secure, and just order in that portion of the world. That is the fear I have and that is why we have to find some way to get those two genies back in the bottle.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I want to commend our brave young people in the armed service who are currently carrying out the policy of the government of the day in the Persian Gulf. This debate is not about them directly. It is about the decision by the government to commit them to war.
I would like to make my position very clear today. I am opposed to Canadian offensive participation in the gulf war for three reasons. First, I would prefer to see Canada play a significant humanitarian and diplomatic role, rather than a symbolic offensive military role that may restrain our future ability to play an active role to bring about peace in the Middle East.
Throughout the night as this debate is taking place, we are receiving phone calls from across Canada. We are urging people to phone in with their concerns to area code 613-996-7446, to express their concerns. I know there are many people out there who feel as devastated as I do by what is taking place.
I believe that other avenues at least had the potential to bring Saddam Hussein to his knees. I will not commit my vote to a war until I, as a member of Parliament, am convinced that no other options exist. I would like to remind the House that the New Democratic Party did

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
not support the headlong rush into war represented by and I Security Council resolution 678.
As we debated that resolution, we talked about our concerns about a deadline and how it would be seen and would be effective. Throughout that debate, the government kept insisting that that was only a date and that we could continue sanctions. It did not mean that war would break out at that date. Less than 14 hours after that date came about, Canada was at war.
I want to say how devastated I was when I heard that, after hearing the comments from the Prime Minister and from the Secretary of State for External Affairs every day as we questioned them in the House with regard to sanctions and asked them for proof that they were not working. Not one single time did the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister put forward any concrete evidence to the House that these sanctions were not working. They kept telling us that the sanctions would continue and that it did not necessarily mean that we would be going to war.
We voted against that resolution. I had hoped and prayed that I would not have to come into the House and say what I am going to say at this moment and that is, we told you so. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, and the members of the government who voted for that resolution have now got the conscience 14 hours after the deadline of putting Canada at war.
There is a fundamental question that all members of the House have to ask. . . as they formulate their position. We are all appalled by the brutality of the Iraq invasion and the occupation and the suffering of the people of Kuwait. But what is the trade-off? Would seven or ten more months of sanctions, sanctions that many experts felt had a good possibility of working, be a fair trade-off for what may be the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives? The answer I could arrive at is yes. The risk of sanctions not working was preferable to the risks of war. The uncertainty of sanctions working is no less than the uncertainty of where this war could take the world.
What is the most appropriate role for Canada? I would like to take the opportunity to expand on each of my three points. There are many countries that strongly oppose Iraq which are not playing an offensive military role in the gulf. There are many countries that have
contributed to all the military build-up in the gulf which strongly oppose Saddam Hussein and have abided by that UN sponsored programs and sanctions. It is very important to consider the question of why some countries support the United Nations have chosen to become involved in this war in an offensive manner and why some have hesitated. It is fair to assume that each country's decision is based on an evaluation of tradition, capability, history, and its perception of what the best course of action is.
Our government has decided that the act of military engagement is the best and most appropriate of action. I fundamentally disagree with it. I believe that Canada has a tradition: a view of war as the last possible resort. I must say that this is a tradition that differs from that of our neighbours' to the south.
There has a been a lot said about the role played by Lester Pearson in developing this tradition. This precedent has served us so well and I, too, would like to acknowledge his enormous contribution.
I too, would like to acknowledge the vital role played by John Diefenbaker during the Cuban missile crisis, because I believe it is important to point out the non-partisan history of our Canadian experience. Mr. Diefenbaker could have enthusiastically backed the military effort of the U.S., but he insisted that Canada would make military decisions on its own and only as a last resort. Mr. Diefenbaker could have committed Canada to participating in the U.S. sponsored trade embargo against Cuba, but he did not.
Through his actions, Mr. Diefenbaker said forcefully and courageously that Canada, although it agreed about the threat posed by missiles in Cuba, would make its own military decisions.
Canada has a tradition of military caution and of looking for non-military solutions to conflict. I believe this current government has broken with this tradition.
The next question, and one I think all members who opposed the government's decision have a responsibility to answer is: What should Canada's role be?
I suggest the number of actions that should be considered, including the use of our military personnel for what could be best described as humanitarian roles, such as medical personnel, refugee and relief operations, and
January 17, 1991

the preparation for possible peacekeeping operations following the war.
Canada should also be pursuing a very resolute and non-combatant diplomatic effort, as we did in Vietnam.
I must say that I do recognize the efforts made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs prior to the start of the hostilities. I do appreciate the fact that he has allowed Iraq diplomatic representation to remain in Canada. But what happens if Jordan, Syria, Iran, or Yemen join the battle against our allies? Who is going to be in a position to negotiate? Who will be able to lead a diplomatic initiative if the whole region goes to war?
I believe that an active military role by Canada will end any chance of Canada filling this essential role and, frankly, I fear it will reduce our options to simply increasing our military commitment to fight other enemies.
In returning to my second point, the abandoning of sanctions, I would like to point to the experts who have offered the opinion that sanctions are working. Senator George Mitchell, Senator Wellstone, former Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral William Crow, Georgetown economist and sanctions expert, Dr. Gaiy Hufbauer, and the list goes on and on. These people say that sanctions had-and I use the past tense-a reasonable chance to achieve their objectives.
Many of my colleagues from the Liberal and Conservative parties have said that this issue is now irrelevant, that sanctions are dead. It is clear there is some twisted logic at work when people, who three days ago said that we must stay the course with sanctions, now say that they support offensive actions in a war they did not support.
It was a mistake by the allies to go to war three days ago. It was a mistake by our government to support the January 15 deadline. It was a mistake to give up on sanctions and the policies that all agreed were hurting Iraq. It is an horrendous mistake to argue that because war has started it is now right to support an offensive role by Canada.
It is obvious that we will not know the casualty totals for some time, but no one would argue that if this war goes on the death total could reach into the hundreds of thousands. That is what war really is, death and destruction.
Government Orders
What is the cost of 100,000 lives? One month? Two months? Three months? I cannot pretend to know that answer. But I can say this, it is more than five months and that is all that we gave sanctions time to work.
I will not-I cannot-vote to commit our brave young people to fighting a war that our politicians have not taken the time to resolve. This is the most important decision I have ever had to take in six years in the House. I will not vote for Canada's offensive participation in a war just because it has already started.
In finishing, I would like to restate the fact that the New Democratic Party warned against supporting the deadline because of the fear that the exact scene we are seeing today, an unnecessary early war, would happen. That is what we are faced with. The fact that the worst has happened is not enough to force me to vote for war.
Before I conclude, I would like to read into the record a few letters and petitions that I have received from my riding regarding this very sad and dreadful decision we have made.
This first letter is addressed to me, with copies to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was dated January 16 and is from constituents in Fernie, British Columbia. It states:
Dear Mr. Parker,
The only heartening thing within the events of the last days has been the strong, sane position of the New Democratic Party and Audrey McLaughlin's forceful statements of that position. The failure of the United Nations to find a peaceful solution is an enormous setback to the establishment of lasting world peace. Canada should not back the United Nations in their erroneous decision. We are extremely angry at our elected government committing our country, our friends, and our family to war. We can only hope that all Canadian young people will understand the insanity and immorality of war.
I have another letter from a constituent in Grasmere, British Columbia addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the NDP, the hon. member for Burnaby- Kingsway, and myself. It states:
Dear Sirs,
With all of my mind and being, I object to Canada's involvement in the gulf situation to further maximize profits for multinational corporations. An economy based on an arms race and war is an unforgivable failure of our government's foresight and leadership.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Truth and non-violence are timeless. One can never cease to be amazed that so many continue to passively accept the anxieties and crumbs handed down from an affluent society to gamble off lives in applying the ultimate sacrifice in unbearable pain and suffering.
I also have a petition from 65 residents of Cranbrook, British Columbia dated January 16, and I am not going to read off all the names. It states:
Dear Mr. Parker,
We are a group of concerned citizens in your constituency who strongly and proudly support your stand and your efforts for peace at this very crucial time.
We feel Canada's role in the world should be one of leadership in making and keeping peace. We, as Canadians, do not support aggressive military action as a way to stop, mend, or prevent aggressive actions of others.
We hope that you will continue to be adamant in this view and that Canada will accept and follow this view so that we will not be engaged in offensive action in the Middle East.
Before I sit down, I plead with the government, government members, and all members of the House of Commons to find a resolution to this deadly war and to bring about peace as quickly as possible so that there will be less suffering and less damage throughout the world.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that there have been numerous phone calls to parliamentarians tonight with people expressing their opinions on this, and I would urge those calls to continue to 613-996-7446.
The opinions of Canadians who have been flowing in here tonight have been incredible. The number of people who are awake and have said they cannot sleep since this thing has started, the suggestions that have come in over the phone, and the absolute commitment are enormous.
The one thing I want to raise with the hon. member and every other hon. member is the problem with the action of the Prime Minister-an individual who enjoys the antipathy of 88 per cent of Canadians and the hostility of the majority of Canadians-and his cabinet declaring a state of war with Iraq.
It has been said that nobody, individually or collectively in a small group, should be allowed to make war on behalf of Canadians. The suggestion has been that there should be a division of power and some checks and
balances in this matter. A vote of this House should be the only authority to declare a state of war to exist with another nation and to authorize the use of armed forces aggressively against them.
Would the hon. member support the concept that we members who support the idea that a Prime Minister and cabinet cannot make a decision to attack another nation offensively and to declare a state of war to exist, should go forward and put together a private member's Bill and seek to have every member of the House endorse it? It would see the power to declare a state of war removed from cabinet and the Prime Minister, and the only authority that could declare war on behalf of this country would be this House by a full vote of every member.
Would the hon. member support that proposition so that that we could move forward and this decision could not be made by a Prime Minister obligated to the United States, or a small group of Canadians called the cabinet could not make that decision?
We are not talking about defensive action. We are talking about aggressive action in a state of war. That would be decided by a full vote of the House. We should put together a private member's bill and attempt to sell that bill to every member of the House so that we never have to face an entrapment motion such as the one that has been placed before us in this situation.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question. It is an excellent opportunity. This is one of the things I noted in the House as we started to debate this, as the tragedies unfolded, and as we were watching television. I heard and saw the devastation of each member on all sides of the House at the destruction and capabilities for it taking place out there.
I heard many of them talking to one another saying that decisions were being made by a half of the House.
Many of the people across Canada who voted for the government and for these positions gave their support to this side of the House. When a decision of this magnitude is made, that is the type of debate and those are the kinds of policies that should come forward so that when that decision is made, the total commitment of the Canadian people has been debated in a non-partisan way and in a very active way without any commitments of any kind to any other promises that may be made or deals
January 17, 1991

that could be cut with other groups and so on. I am not taking about members of Parliament. I am talking about the kinds of discussions that take place between other countries and other groups in which we are not involved at any time.
I agree with the suggestion that was put forward. I would hope many politicians and many members will get together to try to bring about that kind of policy.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, first I have a comment.
The member from Powell River has given out a phone number, 613-996-7446. I want to tell the House that those of us who have been participating in this participatory democracy are thrilled at what has been happening. We have been taking calls from coast to coast. So far, to my knowledge, we have had none from Yukon or the Northwest Territories.
I would like to share with the House a comment from a woman in Edmonton who said that this is the first time in all her life-she was quite sincere about this-that she could say something that she felt would be heard. I have assured her that her voice would be heard in the House. She wondered how we had changed our role from one of a peacekeeper to one of a warmaker, and whether we were not simply now, through the government, being the echo of the Bush administration.
I would like to ask the member for Kootenay East the question that she posed to me. In the past and through the years, Canadians have been proud to hold their heads up high when they travelled internationally. They have always gone abroad and have been well respected in the Middle East, the east, and central European countries. Everywhere they have gone, they have worn the maple leaf with pride. Will we, through this, lose our respect in the international community? Would the hon. member respond to that woman from Edmonton?
I remind people that the number is 613-996-7446. Keep the calls coming.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question.
Government Orders
It is a remarkable thing that here we are at 6.30 a.m. after a long debate throughout the night. Phone calls are coming in from across Canada expressing Canadians' concerns and desires for Canada to maintain a peaceful role and not an offensive role.
I believe we have lost our tradition. If we continue in this aggressive role, we are going to lose that tradition. But what is even more severe is the fact that, when this war is over and if we have participated in an offensive way, we will also lose the respect, dignity, and trust that we have had for many years as a country that is peaceful and does everything possible to find the avenues of peace.
Not only will we lose our trust as individuals, but as a country. We have worked so hard for that-and I am not going to be political here-not only under Liberal administrations, but also under Mr. Diefenbaker's administration. As I have stated in my speech, not only under the Liberal administration, but also under Diefenbaker's administration New Democrats for years have been known to be striving for peace and ways to maintain peace. I want to say that yes, our tradition as a peaceful nation and one that is respected world-wide is at stake. I would urge the government to reconsider its offensive role to get back to the role of peacemaking and find a solution so that we can get out of this horrible mess.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, a number of us have referred to the resolution. I would like to do the same thing so that we will know just exactly what we are supposed to be discussing. It is very short:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
It has been said that it is a resolution that should give the New Democrats any difficulty because we have always been strong supporters and proponents of the United Nations. Had that been the end of the story, there is no doubt that we would have been supporting the resolution.
But, Madam Speaker, you and I were in the House. We heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs say on one occasion in response to a question that the government is not going to be bound by Security Council resolutions because they might make the wrong decision.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
It was only after the Security Council passed the resolution that we are talking about that the government then said: "Well, that is our policy", because it reserved the right to go in Bush's direction if the Security Council was not prepared to go in that direction.
That is why we have trouble supporting this resolution. It is not really the United Nations, position. It is a position that was drafted by President Bush and his advisers. Again, Madam Speaker, you and I have had an opportunity to read the reports of how the President and his people were travelling around the world, calling in all the markers they had, to make sure that every one of the Security Council members supported their resolution. They pulled out all the stops and they got the support. That is not a decision freely arrived at by the Security Council as we see it.
To get to the discussion that we have had, I am not sure how many hours. We are now into the fourth day of it. One loses track of time. I heard someone say in one of the phone calls that they were having trouble sleeping. Some of us might be wondering just what that is. It is half an hour past my usual time of getting up. Like the hon. member for Saint-Denis, I feel more wide awake now than I did some 12 hours ago, so we will see how things go-
I have heard members on the government side of the House say we have to stop Hussein. They describe him with a 22-year record of brutality and terrorism in his own country, a person who has used chemical warfare against his own people, the enemy the people of Iraq have lived under for 22 years. If our motivation is truly one of concern for the people under Hussein's control, if we could wait for 22 years to pay any attention to it, why could we not have waited a few more months or even one more year, if that is what it would take for sanctions to work?
How many children in Baghdad or Tel Aviv or how many adults in or out of the armed services do we have to butcher or maim before we dare agree that it might have been better to have waited and given sanctions an opportunity to work. All the reports I heard were to the effect that the sanctions were working.
Even those who questioned them said that it was just a matter of time, that it could take as much as a year for them to work. We had already invested four and a half
months in the sanctions, why not another of seven and a half months if it took that much, and let sanctions do the job that we are now trying to do by killing?
Some two hours after the news first broke I think it was at seven o'clock on January 16, a poem that I had memorized some 50 years ago and have not looked at, since, forgotten I suppose, came to mind. I attributed it in error to Mr. A.E. Houseman, when in fact it was written by Thomas Hardy. The third verse, as I recall it, goes something to this effect:
Quaint and curious war is.
You shoot a fellow down.
You treat, if met when any bar is,
Or help to half a crown.
War is quaint and curious. War must be mankind's greatest folly. War settle no problems. They exacerbate old ones and create new ones. They settle no problems. Wars are easy to start, but sometimes can be very difficult to stop.
This resolution states that we are working through the United Nations. This is a United Nations effort but, again, you know and I know that when President Bush talks about the war effort and when the Prime Minister of our country talks about the war effort, they talk about the allies. They talk about the coalition. They never talks about the United Nations force because it is not a United Nations Force. It has the backing of resolutions, yes, but it is an American force that is almost totally supported by a few of the allies or coalition.
Canada's role as a peacemaker was universally accepted and highly regarded until it started to weaken in 1984, the occasion of the present Prime Minister's election to that position. From then on our role as one separate, either economically, internationally, politically or culturally, has been so merged with the United States that we are now recognized more and more as nothing but a vassal of the present Bush administration, or a poor 51st state in the Union of the United States.
No one would doubt, no one would question, whether or not it is Bush who is calling all the shots and that we are following them-trying to anticipate them perhaps, but certainly following them. We have abandoned our role as a peacekeeper. That is a loss to us but it is also a loss to the world as a whole.
January 17, 1991

It is easy for politicians sitting in comfortable places far removed from any place of danger to vote in favour of war. We get to vote. The young people who go to the front lines have no vote. That should make us a bit more responsible in voting in favour of war, and yet we seem to do it so easily, so lightly, and not even because it serves our own interests best, but rather because it serves the interests of the American president.
"War is the ultimate human folly. This is something I collected some time ago but it is still valid. The money required to provide adequate food, water, education, health and housing for everyone in the world has been estimated at $17 billion a year. That is a huge sum of money, Madam Speaker. Just about as much as the whole world spends on arms every week of the year, to put it into perspective. One week's spending on arms would be enough to accomplish all those things".
I am going to read another quotation.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final scene a theft from those who hunger, and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the house of its children... This is not a way of life. Under the cloud of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
This is signed by Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Currently Canada spends some $13 billion a year. That is before we got involved in this campaign of invasion into Iraq, $13 billion a year to be prepared for war. Not fighting, but simply to be prepared for war; to be ready to kill, should the occasion rise. We are spending some $3 billion a year to try to help developing nations help themselves, not to give them relief but to try to help them to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Canadians have fought in two world wars and have handled themselves very well, each of them a war that was designed, intended and described as a war that was going to end all wars. Canadians participated well and still are participating in many areas of the world in peacekeeping forces. Today, for perhaps the first time in our history, we are participating in a war as one of the aggressors again, supposedly in the interest of peace.
Government Orders
Canada has failed as has the rest of the world; we joined in the failure. What we have been doing has not worked. We have been fighting wars, wars of defence and, currently, a war of aggression to preserve the peace and none of it has worked. Certainly out of this war, if peace comes it may be 1,000 years down the road. There has to be a better way and I suggest that there is.
I am not a pacifist. I spent five years in the air force during the war and that was a war that had to be fought; the mistakes were made long before war started, there is no question about it. I am not saying that this one is much different. The mistakes, again, were made over a 22-year period. But there has to be a better way and we have to start before we get into war, not after.
When I was in high school, I was impressed by a teacher who, years later, became a columnist for The Ottawa Citizen and is retired here in Ottawa now, Ronald Grantham. He won an international prize for writing a letter or paper on unilateral disarmament.
What I am proposing now as the better way, the only way that can work, because what we have done up till now has certainly failed humanity totally, is for Canada to disarm totally and unilaterally its armed services, do away with our defence spending and concentrate on using that money to help those nations that need it to help themselves. Let us use our money to build peace rather than to arm to fight wars because fighting wars never has and never will produce peace. There may be a cessation of hostilities but we never get peace by fighting wars. Let us disarm and show that there is a better way.
I am not proposing this to the world as a whole. That, I hope, will come, but I am saying that there is one country in the world which can do it alone. There is one country in the world that is big enough. If we abandoned our defence spending, the amount of money and the effort that we could put into a program for peace would be large enough that it would be noticed around the world. We can do it because, although we are very large, very rich in resources, a very productive people with a very strong economy, there is no possibility of our defending our borders against either an aggressor from the south or one from the north. It is totally impossible for a nation of some 30 million people to defend some 10,000 or 15,000 miles of border; it is just not possible.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
We could abandon our defence spending. We are not going to defend ourselves. The amount of money that we are spending on defence, some $13 billion a year right now, of money that is being spent, is but a pittance out of the total amount internationally, of over $1,000 billion a year. Our $13 billion is such a small portion in comparison to the total, it would not be noticed in the total world pool of defence spending. But the contribution that we could make to international aid and development would be noticed. And hopefully, working through the auspices of the United Nations-and as I said before we have always supported the United Nations and would love to be doing it in this case if we thought it was a decision freely arrived at-and selecting countries that would benefit from this kind of assistance, countries that were prepared to forswear spending their scarce resources on national defence as well, on the condition that they had a guarantee from the United Nations organization that their borders would remain intact, perhaps we could widen the circle of nations that would be prepared to leave security of their borders to collective security, as provided by the United Nations.
Canada is unique. We can give up defence since we cannot even pretend to be able to defend our own country. The experience we have had with our armed services this year has been such that we know they are exceptionally good at organization. They could well be used to do the kind of work throughout the world that I feel would be building for peace as opposed to fighting wars and killing people, and hoping that we can kill enough so that the next war will be a little further delayed than it might have been otherwise. Canada is one country that is unique enough in that it cannot defend itself so it might as well give it up. Yet, it is important enough economically that it can make a significant contribution to the kind of program that I have been describing.
We are now participating as an aggressor. We have abandoned our peacekeeping operation. We no longer have that kind of a reputation. Let's take another look at it and go at it from a different direction. Let us make an effort through economic development, using our exceptionally capable armed services to do the organizing so that we can make a tremendous impression upon the world and show there is a way for human beings to live together. If we go on the way we have been going for
centuries and even for thousands of years, if we do not soon learn to live together, we are going to give up living altogether as a species on this planet.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, with your indulgence I would like to make a comment and then ask the member a question.
My comment is to thank the people across Canada once again for their participation in this debate throughout the night. It has been most heartening to see that the people of Canada do watch the parliamentary channel, whether it is in British Columbia or St. John's, Newfoundland, regardless of the time of night. We have had calls over the last couple of hours from all across Canada.
Just recently I took calls from about 14 people from Ottawa, a couple of people from St. John's, Newfoundland, and from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. All these people speak with one voice in saying they do not want Canada in an aggressive role in the Middle East. I want to express my appreciation to all these people who have phoned in. We have made note of all they have had to say and hope that we have been able to use some of that in our speeches this evening.
I would like to go on with another comment and question with respect to a call that I took from Penticton, British Columbia, a couple of days ago. This person worked for 28 years in the military. His position was that the Iraqi war machine should be crushed because of the build-up of arms. We discussed over a period of time what that build-up of arms was and the difficulties that we were going to have as a nation if we moved, as he said, from a war machine led by a madman and wondered who defines the war machine that should be crushed and who defines the madman. Do we go through all of the countries that have built up arms and who is going to be the policeman in this?
My question to the hon. member is this. Is there some way that he sees to cut off the supply of arms to some of the nations that are building up, such as Iraq, which have built up their arms as a result of imports from places like France, Germany, the Soviet Union and the United States? Can he, in his wisdom and with his experience of World War II and his experience since as a legislator, see any way of tightening up the control so that we get to the root of the problem in this arms build-up and the greed
January 17, 1991

of the arms builders. Can he make a comment on that for me please?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would like to advise the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan that his colleague has left him a minute and a half.


David Stupich: Madam Speaker, the answer has to be through the United Nations organization and I mentioned that during my speech. If that organization becomes influential enough, and people agree that it will have the power to resolve disputes and to guarantee borders, then those nations will not have any need for the kind of armaments they are buying now and paying hard dollars for in many cases and bankrupting their countries to do it. They will not have any use for equipment like that. They will not need it to protect themselves and they will not be able to use it to attack anyone else, so there would be no point to it any more.
The answer lies in strengthening the United Nations. I discussed during my speech and suggested how that could be accomplished.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I rise to do something I thought I would never have to do, and that is speak not in the theoretical, but in the real fact that we are a country at war. It is not formally declared, but nevertheless one we are into.
Let me say at the outset that perhaps in some way I am a contradiction in terms of my very existence. I exist because of a war. My father met my mother in Scotland when he visited relatives of his brother-in-law, when he was sent there as a member of the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders out of Winnipeg. He met my mother. They married and then he was shipped off to Dieppe where he was captured and spent most of the remainder of World War II in a Nazi prison camp in Poland, Stalag 8-B. He was released at the end of the war and came back to Canada and I became their first child.
I say a contradiction because when I was 13 he died of the ramifications of his incarceration. So I have mixed feelings about war, recognizing that sometimes we have no choice, recognizing that sometimes major blunders occur in the decisions of war and the decisions to go to war.
Government Orders
I had the honour three years ago to retravel the path my father took as a member of this House, along with the then Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Hon. George Hees, to attend the 45th anniversary of the landing at Dieppe. In a lot of ways that solidified growing feelings in me about war and the stupidity of such means to resolve conflicts between nations.
Not only was it in seeing the reality of Dieppe, a place that should never have been invaded, because it was impossible to attack and win, but also seeing the reality of the tombstones in England and France and thinking back to comments from my parent's generation of newsreels about when the boys came back home. The ages on those tombstones were 18, 19, 20, 21. They were boys. They had to grow up in a hell of a hurry, but they were still boys who died on those battlefields.
At the same time as more and more information about the Second World War was becoming evident because of the release of confidential documents, to paraphrase the words of George Hees at that time when we held an evening remembrance service at the cemetery at Dieppe, was his comment on the generals and the stupidity of the decision by the generals about going into Dieppe.
We made a mistake in Dieppe and as a nation we made a mistake, as a world we made a mistake in going to war before sanctions against Iraq had time to truly work. There is no question in my mind about that. This is a dumb war. This is an unnecessary war. It is also a war where Canada has undermined 20, 30, whatever years as a nation of peacekeepers, of men and women who have been out there around the world keeping combatants apart, whether it is Cyprus or Israel. I visited UN camps in Israel on the Golan Heights.
Men and women along with other nations such as Finland and India, to name just two, have worked very hard to keep combatants and warring nations apart. That is Canada's role. That is what Canada's military is equipped to do. We do not have the equipment, the force in terms of personnel to be an offensive nation, and thank God that we do not. At the same time, I am scared about what will happen to our men and women who are already deployed in the Persian Gulf and those who may soon be deployed.

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
It is now a few minutes before seven o'clock in the morning. Technically, according to the House of Commons, this is still Thursday. Some of us believe it really should be Wednesday. But in the last hours of this debate, I will be the last speaker for my party and my friend the member for Saint Denis will be the last for his. We have been receiving phone calls from across Canada. It has been truly remarkable.
In the time remaining, I would like to try to report to the House about the exchange we have had. As someone who has been staffing the phones in the lobby, I have been talking to people whom I have never met, not one person have I ever met in my life. A lot of the calls were from British Columbia primarily because of the time zone reality. I want to say that I took calls from people in Ontario and Quebec who have not been able to sleep. They have been up all night concerned about what Canada got itself into, worried sick, and they are watching the debate in the House of Commons.
One of the messages they passed on to me is that the reason they are watching the House of Commons channel as opposed to the multitude of news channels is that finally they are hearing something about peace, that they are hearing from members of this House who are saying that this war is insane, this war has: "to stop, we have to find a better way, and they are saying: Thank you, keep up the good work".
A lot of times members of Parliament feel pretty lonely. Certainly, at a time like this when my party has differed with the party positions of the rest of the House and, perhaps, for the short period of time with the position of a lot of Canadians, it gets pretty lonely.
I will tell you, Madam Speaker, the calls we have been receiving have really helped us because we know that we are not alone. We are speaking for hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
Let me give some of the thoughts from these Canadians. A citizen from Burnaby is opposed to the war. He says it is a catastrophic blunder and he is now looking at diverting his tax dollars to the peace tax fund.
Another said: "Totally wreckless", A gentleman from B.C called. He is an immigrant from Yugoslavia who has been here for 20 years. He says that this war is totally wrong, that it is an atrocity.
Another talked about the innocent children, women and old people of Kuwait and Iraq. They did not cause this war. They are going to get hurt and killed. Others made comments about the government. They are so sick of this government. Others said that this is a very interesting debate. They appreciate it happening, and we do not support the war. One physician from Ottawa called about 5 a.m. She just got off night shift at one of the hospitals. A member of Physicians for Nuclear Responsibility called in to express her support.
There is great agreement with what the NDP has been saying. This next comment was quite interesting because a lot of us have been watching the news channels and the scenes. Certainly, the one scene from Iraq, the first pictures to come out of the bombardment with the anti-aircraft weapon response, looked like Star Wars. It looked like something out of a movie.
One individual said: "People think this is just one big Nintendo game." Then he pointed out and said: "These are live players. These are human beings in that Nintendo game. It is not an artificial thing that gets eradicated. It is live flesh and blood".
Others pointed out that we should not fool ourselves, that this is really not a United Nations force. This is an American force with a few other countries participating.
A gentleman from Oshawa called with clear disapproval of the Canadian involvement in the gulf. A gentleman from Downsview said: "This war sickens me." A lady in Vancouver called and said that she had been at a meeting last night organized by the COPE aldermen and 500 young people walked 30 miles from Maple Ridge to Vancouver to the meeting chanting: "We don't want war. We want peace." That is the next generation. It is also the cannon fodder. Let us not forget that.
Others said: "Bring our forces back." One said: "We are ashamed of our country in terms of what it has done." Others reflected what we all know, that this is an emotional roller coaster. They have said that Iraq should not be occupying Kuwait, but they are also ashamed that the Prime Minister chose to give Canada an aggressive role rather than a peacekeeping role under the direct auspices of the United Nations.
A person from Nanaimo said: "I wish there was some way to stop this war". Another said: "Because of what I have heard tonight, knowing that there are people in Parliament who are expressing what I have been thinking, I can sleep a little better tonight and thank you".
January 17, 1991

One asked for a wiser approach to how we deal with these kinds of disputes. A person from Toronto wanted to add their voice to a desire to end Canadian involvement in the war and proud of the NDP for the position that we have taken, and would love a peacekeeping role.
One lady I talked to, who is a former citizen of South Africa, talked at length about the sanctions and how they really were not applied as effectively as they could have been in South Africa. Yet look at what we are seeing happening, where apartheid is ending. She also said that no one can rejoice at the destruction of the human beings in the Middle East.
Another one pointed out that the real soldiers, not in a derogatory way in terms of our forces in the Middle East, were the members of that peace camp, including one Canadian doctor, who positioned themselves without weapons between the coalition forces and the Iraqi forces. Another one just said that it is very emotional, and appreciated what we were doing.
A woman from Sarnia said that we had no right to be there. She pointed out that she was 76 years old, so she has been through a couple of wars already. She said: "We did not accomplish anything in the last one. What is this one going to accomplish? It is just going to lead to yet another war at another point in time". Another interesting phrase that came out is that we can fight for peace. As a political movement, we can fight for peace.
There was great support for the suggestion by my colleague for a non-partisan coalition against the war. One was very angry-in fact two in terms of the calls-with what has been happening in Question Period, that members of the government are laughing at suggestions for peace.
They are also appalled at the media coverage. They did not identify the media, but we have all been watching. It seems to be that the language is a military language and the focus is on the military weapons. We have not seen any pictures of the dead in Iraq or in Kuwait. We have seen pictures of the damage in Israel and we regret that. We think it was insane for Hussein to attack Israel, unwarranted, unnecessary, unconnected with this war, and, God, I hope that Israel is able to keep its act together and not feel bound to retaliate because that will only escalate.
Government Orders
Again, as our speakers have pointed out time and time again, that was one of our fears about going to war in the Middle East. It has always been one of our fears that it will not be a nuclear war started between the U.S.S.R. and the United States; it will be an accident in the Middle East or a similar country.
I know that the time for my remarks is nearing an end. It has been impossible to put in 20 minutes all the thoughts that I have, plus all the comments and thoughts that have been passed on to me this evening. I just want to make two final points, particularly to those people who will be watching the reruns of these debates that when they call there may not be anyone answering the phones. We are going to try to staff the phones in the opposition lobby for the time, if we can predict, when the repeat will be on for the last three or four hours of the debate because we do want to hear from them. I would encourage people out there to call their local member of Parliament and let him or her know where they stand on Canada's involvement.
As I said at the beginning, I never thought, I never expected, I never planned to be in this House to be debating the fact that Canada was at war. As a Canadian who gets deeply emotional when the phrase "we stand on guard for thee" is sung as part of our national anthem, having seen what standing on guard for thee has done, I do not want any more heroes. I do not want any more heroes on the battlefield. I am quite happy to remember the heroes who fought for Canada in World War I, World War II and the Korean war. Please, let us end this war now; let us put our forces back to a peacekeeping role to do what they have done for Canada for years, and made us proud. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen for watching this debate and letting us know how you feel.


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Ati-kokan for his excellent speech on a subject which, I agree is not easy. I would like to remind Canadian people, of one thing if I may. There is great concern today, and rightly so, about the risks the men and women of the

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Canadian Armed Forces are presently facing in the Gulf. We too often forget the tens of thousands of policemen and women who risk there lives daily to enforce the law in Canada. It is sad, but when one of them gets killed it is not cause for a debate in this House. My point is, Madam Speaker, that the role Canada is playing is that of restoring peace. Peace has to be restored before we can maintain it.
One man has led his people without telling them a thing, and they are truly the first victims of what is happening out there. I am talking about the Iraqi people who blindly followed a man with no conscience.
The international law, the international government we call the United Nations, and all its member nations unanimously denounced the aggression on one of their own, and Kuwait called upon its sister nations within the UN to come and free it. Canada, with a 45-year tradition of peacekeeping and defending rights and freedoms, did not depart from the mission it always gave itself by accepting the risks and sacrifices required to bring about a new world order.
I do not like it, when the hon. member and his colleagues claim that we, on this side of the House, are people looking for violence and for war. Quite the contrary; never in the history of Canadian diplomacy was there so much effort to prevent a war.
Over the last 112 days, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has had 50 bilateral meetings and at least another 50 multilateral meetings, while our Prime Minister was attending numerous meetings and having numerous phone conversations, to try to find a peaceful solution to the conflict before we got to this point.
Madam Speaker, Canada has been a leader in the world for the past 45 years. I think Canadian people can be proud of the work their country and their government have done. Of course the present situation, and I will close on that, is the doing of a man who did not recognize the law, the international law and that of the United Nations, which state that every nation on this earth has the right to live freely in its country and to call its neighbours and friends to its assistance after an invasion such as the one Kuwait sustained.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his compliment at the beginning of his statement and question. I also thank him for his question.
It is no surprise that there are fundamental differences in this House in terms of how one achieves peace. The Government of Canada has chosen at this point in time to use military force as a means to attempt to achieve peace.
We have been consistently saying that the time was not there to do that, that sanctions take a while to work. The five-month arbitrary deadline was set at the request of the United States. The coalition forces in the gulf are not wearing the blue helmets of the United Nations, the tradition of any UN force. When the government likes to wrap itself in the UN flag, it is a see-through flag and what we are seeing is the American Stars and Stripes.
A lot has been said about this party in particular being anti-American. It is not true. We just got a call from a Will Williamson from Deforest, Wisconsin. He is a veteran of the Vietnam War, 100 per cent disabled. He is totally disillusioned by what his country has done. He has been watching all night. He phoned to congratulate us on our phone-in set-up. He says it is the single largest advance in democracy he has ever seen.
I also want to remind the House that my leader met with senior American members of the Democratic Party, members of Congress and Senate who oppose the war as much as we do. We are not anti-American. We are anti-Bush administration. We are anti-administration of the Conservative Party of Canada. We are pro-Canada. We are pro-peacekeeping in our traditional role of not beating up the bully but of isolating the bully, cutting off the resources that are needed for the bully to function.
I might add that right now we have a Middle East version of the Hatfields and the McCoys. We have two families fighting over turf, not caring about their people, fighting over lines drawn by Great Britain at the end of World War I. The boundaries have no reference to the people who live there.
January 17, 1991

People who have called me tonight have implored the Government of Canada to rethink what it is doing. The time is not too late. We can revert to our traditional role, not by bringing our men and women back home, but by using them to help the victims, the refugees, the injured, and the families left without parents and homes. That is the role for Canada. That is what we should have been doing all along.
At the same time we should be working through the UN to find a diplomatic solution so that the war and carnage can end before many more people are killed, regardless of race.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, government involves making decisions. It involves planning and it involves choices. I have chosen to be against this war in which my country, Canada, is involved.
One of the happiest moments of my life was on February 10, 1964, when I was elected for the first time as the member for the riding of Saint-Denis in Montreal.
One of the promises I was allowed to make by Mr. Pearson to my constituents was that even if we were a minority government we would have a distinctively Canadian flag before the next election. First there was a very vigorous debate in the House, but we got our flag.

We got our Canadian flag after a long debate, my first debate in 1964. That was the pride of my day. It has been the pride of my life ever since.
Yes, I come from Quebec. Yes, I am Canadien frangais. Yes, I am from Montreal. Yes, I said the same thing in French.

I see Canada's flag as an image, a dream, a symbol for a world in disarray that is seeking, somewhere on this planet, a relatively peaceful land, a generous land, with open-minded people who may have their minor prejudices, but nevertheless, a land where people can live in peace and understanding.
Government Orders

That is what Canada is all about. It is a hope for the world. What the world has always seen in Canada is the hope of a different place on earth or, as my Indian friend says in English, mother earth. Indians always talk about mother earth. Canada is that. Canada is looked on by the world as a compromise between all kinds of regions, emotions and people who could always provide, not a solution but proposals when there is trouble in the world.
The government of the day has chosen to join with the United States and with many other countries to teach Saddam Hussein a lesson once and for all. The leader of the government-and I will say it in English-is a personal friend of mine.

And I say in French without shame, that he is a personal friend. On Wednesday, October 11, when this Prime Minister, my friend, received His Majesty King Hussein Bin Talal of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, he addressed him in the following terms, very politely of course: "We also celebrate here today the landmark first address to the Canadian Parliament of the leader of an Arab country. Your autobiography and the testimony of many respected world leaders record your dedication, sir, to the cause of peace in the Middle East. In fact, few, if any, have shown greater determination in this cause nor pursued it with greater resolve. As Prime Minister Thatcher has said so aptly of you, Your Majesty, your human qualities, above all your courage and clearsightedness, have earned you both respect and admiration world-wide".
He said a few other things that might be a bit embarrassing, but the point is that the little king, as they call him, warned the world of the tragedy that is now taking place under our very eyes. The Middle East is far more complex than we think.

You could study it for 25 years, as I have done, and still feel humble because you have a lot more to learn. I said in my speech in October that when you go to the Middle East you know how you get in, but you do not know when you will get out and how you will get out. We are in.
It was was not the mission of Canada to be there that way. That country was representing a hope for humanity. It did not respect a big power. La France and Great Britain, I call them my in-laws. It is always pleasant for a

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
person like me and like my three colleagues from Quebec, members of the Conservative Party, friends, to say we would double colonialize, la France and Great Britain.
We are Americanized. We love it, but we are not American. That is what almost half of the world sees in us. Here is a country that was colonized by the French, taking the land away of course from the Indian and the Eskimo, and then colonized again by the British and looked at with envy by the United States. That is why we have our entry everywhere in the world.
The government has chosen. It is not our choice. I am not going to yell. It is 7.30 p.m. Saturday morning. Most of us have been here since ten o'clock Friday morning. As I said earlier, I never felt more full of energy having stayed during every minute of the debate. The outcome is so unbelievable that it gives me a kind of lasting energy to try to convince governments that it may not be too late. Do not look at us and say: "The Liberals seem to be divided". I hope the NDP will vote against this motion. The Gallup poll may be saying something today but a great Roman thinker said: "Reason must prevail over public opinion when it is volatile". I will remember, all my life, the time when the War Measures Act was in force, when 86 per cent of the people were endorsing us. As I said earlier, I voted for it. I still claim I was lied to. I did have the information so I had to do my duty. But I know one thing: 1970 is something that I remember, clearly. The government has chosen. Public opinion, volatile as it is, not having seen yet the massacre taking place, says it is right, Okay.
On this question, as I said earlier, I make it a moral issue not a Gallup or a poll issue. I remember also, in 1972, the same people who were supporting us at 86 per cent almost defeated us, less than 18 months after, so one does not go by polls, polls, and polls. I would like, at this time, to say that I, Marcel Prud'homme, feel-I hope that is a good expression in English-so much for our young Canadians who are, at the moment, right in the middle of accomplishing their duty because they signed, they are military. They are proud and they obey. The government of the day says: "You are going to do that" and they are doing it.
In this sense, I am positive we will not deprive them of all the essentials so that they come back to this country safely. That is one issue. But the true issue is: why did we not go on? Why did we not convince the United States to be patient in that region of the world? What was predictable is happening. This is Saturday morning at 7.30. Look at what is going on in Jordan. Look at the masses in Algeria, a country with a population of 30 million, 70 per cent of whom are young people. Look at what is going on in my dear Lebanon; there are demonstrations. Poor Lebanon that was just about to get back on its feet, after 16 years of abandonment by the west, the big power. In Jordan, a neighbour of Israel, there are demonstrations. The cabinet is meeting and the Parliament is meeting at this moment while I am talking. What will happen? Do we not know the Arab mind? Do we not have scholars who will tell us that over there they do not function as they do in Europe, they do not feel as they do in Europe. They have been pushed around, insulted and betrayed.

-They had every reason in the world to be suspicious. And this evening, all that seems to have come to a head throughout the Middle East.
Those who thought they could go to the Middle East, do a clean-up operation and get out quickly are mistaken. I am putting my reputation on the line. If I am wrong, I will get down on my knees and thank God. But I doubt it. I think I am going to be right. And I regret that. But couldn't we predict something that was so obvious?
I talked about our Canadian forces. Of course I also want to talk about Israel.

I am a member of the International Parliamentary Union. I spoke to Arafat personally: "Recognize the State of Israel and its right to live in peace", multiple times, while I had Canadian parliamentarians who forced us to vote, if we were going to listen to Arafat, not to be in agreement with him; just to listen to him. Arafat was at the United Nations in November 1974. He came and asked, begged: "Please don't let me down". We did not listen. Every leader in the Middle East asks for justice, peace and understanding.
January 17, 1991

Government Orders
When you do not produce results, you end up with tougher, more fanatical leaders: Hussein today, Khomeini yesterday, Assad from Syria tomorrow. Why is it that the west always ends up with the Marcos and the Duvaliers? I never understood, or I understand too well: interest, honour, favour, money. We always end up with the rotten.
Of course Saddam Hussein will lose. Of course, the alliance will win, but at what price? I am not a pacifist. He was cornered. He did not have any right to go into Kuwait. He had no right to make the people of Israel scared, hoping they would retaliate. He has no right. We all know that. We all agree. But he was cornered.

What is the matter with us politicians? Are we too proud to be wrong? Are heads of State too proud to admit they are not always right? What about history? Eisenhower, a great U.S President, warned that the greatest threat to U.S. peace was the United States defence establishment.-He could have substituted the West for United States- the arms manufacturers that are making a profit by corrupting developing countries.
Today, my dear colleague and Quebecer to the hilt, young Canadians and Quebecers may be killed with weapons manufactured in this country. Does that make sense? Can we accept that? When is the world going to wake up? When will we understand that all nations are seeking the same thing: dignity?

Should I spell it in English, dignity? As powerful as people think they are, they have no more right to dignity than

the humble of this earth, the people who have been tortured and humiliated, all that is unacceptable. And anyone who knows anything about human psychology, as you do, Madam Speaker, knows that someday things are going to explode. Perhaps not today, but surely tomorrow. So we are indeed in a pretty pickle. I can see hon. members who are about to say it is shocking that some of those Liberals and New Democrats are not only against war but against our soldiers over there. It would be monstrous to think we feel that way.
The government has made a decision as it is entitled to do. We do not agree with that decision. However, we believe that everything must be done to give these young Canadians and Quebecers-


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, given the fact that the speaker is the last speaker of the evening and the last speaker in the debate, and given his long time service to this country, could we extend his time to speak in appreciation of the people who are watching this debate and of the calls that I got on the hotline?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would like to see what the point of order is, if the hon. gentleman would come to it.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to extend the time of the member's speech.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure members of the House were quite prepared to extend, for a reasonable time, the time allowed to the hon. member for Saint-Denis. I realize that what has prompted the hon. member to rise was that I did signal, as was my duty, in trying to make things easier for the hon. gentleman. I thank everyone for their co-operation.

The hon. member for Saint-Denis may wish to conclude his speech in a few minutes.
The hon. member for Saint-Denis has the floor, and I apologize for the interruption.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, you were doing your job, and I respect that fact as I respect this institution.

I will not abuse this but I can feel Canadian feeling quickly. I was in the lobby. To be frank, I will give you one. He is waiting for me to mention his name. It is Todd and he is from Regina. He is in agreement with the government and I have to be honest and say it.
People are watching us on satellite from Wisconsin and Saginaw, Michigan. Nine people phoned while I was in the lobby. I have listened. The NDP was too busy so I did. I was trying to catch the eye of some of my colleagues. I say to the members from Thunder Bay-Ati-kokan. I can read and I can listen. They are from Don Valley West, from British Columbia, a Rose Marie. Within a few minutes there were others from New

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
Westminster, British Columbia, John from Stoney Creek and another a Rose Marie. Suddenly people are having an interest in world affairs. They are saying: "Wait a minute, I did not know what was going on. Who made that decision? How was this decision made and why?"
The Prime Minister will come back on Monday and we will be here. What kind of diplomatic gesture is he going to offer? Right now you can be at war and be part of it. It will be more difficult but at the same time you can carry the Canadian flag again, the flag of pride, offer some solution. Are we totally finished here? Do we have nothing to offer to the world that is begging parliamentarians, statesmen, and church leaders? They are all saying: "Do something. It makes no sense".
I do not like to be partisan. Hon. members know that. I am not partisan, but I say: "Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary of State for External Affairs, work night and day."
It was unbelievable over Christmas when all the foreign ministers of the world were trying initiatives there. But, when one makes initiatives, one has to have a soul, a soul that understands others. There is no master servant on earth in foreign affairs.

If you treat people with contempt because they are Arabs well, Arabs are like Mr. Plourde or Marcel Prud'homme or Mrs. Champagne. They are human beings who want to be treated fairly and with respect. They expect that, and they always hoped that is what they would get from Canada.
I am sorry, but I think we failed miserably in this respect. I have a pile of notes here. I have been following this debate for days. I have been collecting facts for years, and when I get up to speak, I am afraid I get disconcerted from time to time.

I am not well-disciplined. Over the years I have accumulated what I would like. I have tried every angle to convince colleagues to take an interest and to make government understand. When I travel around the world, I talk about peace in the Middle East because it
will blow up some day. But now that we are in it, there is still a possibility to recuperate our tradition as Canadians.
My last word, Madam Speaker, would be to thank you and my colleagues for your patience. It is a call to Canadians in both French and English.

Let me tell you what I saw last night and this morning, my Lebanese taxi driver-

This is not Canada. This is not my Canada. This is not my Toronto, my Ottawa, or my Montreal.
I hope Canadians who will have a difficult time discussing this issue will not start by being paranoid as soon as they see dark-skinned people, as if immigration officers.
Being from Iraq, Palestine, or any other part of that world does not mean you are not a loyal Canadian. There are laws in this country. People know how far they can go and how much they can do. If they do not behave as good Canadians or as good future Canadians, they know the law is there.
Let us not start insulting these people in a disgusting way, as some are now starting to do. It is too dangerous. Let us understand each other.

We must be very careful. Later on, I will get back to this new economic order, this new world order everyone is talking about. If the new world order exists, what are we waiting for? We could tell our new ally, who has always been a friend, the President of Turkey: "Now listen, there a new economic order and there is a new world order. Couldn't you get out of Cyprus?"

Why do they not get out of Cyprus? There is a new order now in the world. What are they doing occupying north Cyprus?
My colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt said that, well, of course, there is no oil there so that will become a preoccupation of the United Nations very late.
January 17, 1991

Suddenly, the United Nations is becoming so important that the United States government, which forgot to pay its dues to the United Nations for many years, now finds it important again. Can it give the $500 million it owes to the United Nations? Suddenly, the United Nations has become important again.
I rejoice, but I do not want anybody to use the United Nations for his or her own purposes. The United Nations is there to find solutions to world problems.

Madam Speaker, I don't know whether I managed to convince my colleagues, but I can assure you that Canadians who are listening are going to ask questions. The Quebecois and Quebecoises-and I am not discriminating but I happen to like the word,-are going to ask questions. I don't care about being popular. I don't care about the polls. When we come back in a month or two we will see what Canadians and Quebecers think about this debate, a debate that started far too late because it should have been held before or around August 2, not today. The deed is done, so we will try to do the best we can, but it won't be easy. You know as well as I do it will not be easy.


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment very briefly. First of all, I would like to say that I admire and envy the talent and experience of the hon. member for Saint-Denis, especially in the House, and the depth of emotion in his speeches. When I have spent as many years in the House as the hon. member-if my constituents are willing-I may be able to speak with some of that same eloquence and emotion. The hon. member made a number of points which I think are fundamental.
Not so long ago, I was able to go over there and see what it is like in an Arab State, to see the proud bearing of these people, their pride in what they are. However, what I felt was a certain fear that someday someone would want to take over, with total disregard for their sovereignty. Their system may not be perfect. I agree some political systems are not exactly the way we would like them to be, but there is something in the hon. member's speech that bothers me.
People say that the Americans do this and the Americans do that- All I can say is that I was really impressed when a few months ago, Mr. Gorbachev told Mr. Bush and the world: The cold war was over. The cold war
Government Orders
between the two blocs is over and done with. Let us consider all the problems. Hon. member will agree that all the problems in the Middle East were due to the fact that to all intents and purposes, we had two enemies who were both trying to take advantage of the situation in that area and finally, what happened? The result is the shambles we have now. I think the hon. member will agree on that point. However, we had hope, at least I did. I may be naive, and I agree that I am a political novice. I may have been naive to hope that finally, now the cold war was over, all countries large and small, whether they were in the Soviet bloc or in the U.S. bloc-in any case those blocs no longer exist at least would finally without exception, be able to express their views.
In any case, I would appreciate it if the hon. member would answer this question. Would he agree that by attacking Kuwait, Mr. Hussein created an explosive situation and tried to destroy what the whole world was starting to build in an attempt to do something worth while in this area and to give these people, whom I also admire a great deal even if I do not know them as well as the member does dignity by giving them the means to develop their region?


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, of course I said that Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was unacceptable. In French this is very strong: inacceptable. There are rules. We disagree on how to deal with a situation that is unacceptable. According to the statements by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, by all the religious communities, all the pacifists movements-and I urge them to keep up the good work and keep us all on our toes-there are other ways of doing what we are doing now. That is where we disagree. This is unacceptable. Yes, I say this with a great deal of emotion.

Yes, God dammit, I have emotion. I am talking about the planet, human relationships, human emotions and people who are going to die and are dying. Of course I am emotional, but I am cool.

I can see a few reporters who have been chasing me for quite while saying: "In a long emotional speech-". Well, let them, but I wish they would come and see me after my speech and realize that I am-rational I might get upset, but emotional, I don't mind a bit. In Quebec we are not a distinct but a different society. We think differently, and we act differently. We have different

January 17, 1991
Government Orders
emotions. We are good Canadians just the same, although we are different and we express ourselves in a different way.
This is my way, and I do not intend to change. It takes a lot of physical stamina but the debate is over.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations to the hon. member. He has been in this House for 27 years. He has sat on the external affairs committee and chaired it longer than I have probably been here. Tonight, he has demonstrated the reason this House has had such great confidence in him.
As a summary in the last speech in this House, he has done a tremendous job. He has given a very stem warning that we have enormous responsibilities for the people of Canada and, indeed, for the people of the world. He has been an articulate spokesperson for the Muslim communities of this world, especially the Palestinian community, for justice, recognition and dignity.
I must say how much I truly respect the contribution that he has made.
The second thing, as a great many people in here have said, is that there has been a failure on the part of this place. Indeed, I have changed my mind tonight. This has not been a failure. People who are here have gone through an agonizing process clarifying their own thinking on it. There have been some very constructive presentations.
Some of the women in this House have made some of the finest speeches that I have ever heard in the 12 years that I have been here. They have made the strongest appeals. I think when we leave here today that all of us will leave with a clearer notion of where we are going with this issue.
Unfortunately, it strikes me there is a division down the middle of this House. It cannot be reconciled. The government feels that it has taken the correct choice, that it is the necessary support for the United Nations. This side feels it is the most inappropriate thing that could have been done.
I think we as legislators do represent constituencies and millions of Canadians and that it is time to move it into the hands of the people. I think that, from our side, organizations across this country that have committees to stop this war are an absolute must. On the government side, they must plead their case to Canadians. God help them.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, as graciously as possible, I would like to thank the hon. member for his kindness. I would like to make just a slight correction.
Yes, I am a defender of the Palestinians. I will not talk about that, because you will be here for the next 10 hours. I will feel like a Palestinian until the day they, like me, have a passport. Then I will feel like another one who is suffering.
The hon. member mentioned Muslims and Palestinians. I also have great place in my heart for people of the Jewish faith. To me, what we should be working for is getting these three peoples together. Remember that 25 per cent of the Palestinians share our majority faith: Christian, Catholic. If we could only dream.
I said I had a dream. That will be my last dream. If we could only have the reality of putting the leaders of these three great faiths together, who have their Holy Land in places no bigger than 10 times the size of this Parliament. This miracle can take place, but you need people to push people. You need to have initiative.
I call on my colleague to push the government. That is all we can do.

It is physically exhausting, but we have the responsibility. We have had a long debate. We are at war, I agree. I don't challenge that any more, but we have to take steps immediately, and that is where hon. members with whom I have more in common have a great role to play. From now on, night and day, we must keep working, wake up the nation, keep moving, let ourselves be moved by the peace groups. I like these groups because they prick my conscience, they are like gadflies, and that is why I like them. Young people complain there is a lack of imagination in this Parliament. Women, the majority of women in Canada, say: "We don't want war but what can we do?" So it is up to you, my dear colleagues; you are the government!
January 17, 1991



The hon. member is part of the government. Push on the government, not only on the war effort. Saddam Hussein will be taken care of. But push other initiatives to stop that monstrosity taking place in front of our eyes.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, it looks as if Thursday is finally drawing to a close.
I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of all members of the House to thank all employees of the House of Commons who have assisted us in this very lengthy debate: the translators, clerks and their associates, the console operators, the senior pages, broadcasting, security people, the Sergeant-at-Arms, bus drivers, Hansard staff, cafeteria staff and our own staff from each political party.
I also want to thank the members who stayed through the night and those who have come back in the wee hours of the morning, like you, Madam Speaker. We all appreciate that. It has been a very exciting debate. It is probably one of the finest hours this Parliament has seen in a long time.
May I also add my compliments to my good friend who was the final speaker for his excellent remarks. I think it is something we should all contemplate. Madam Speaker, thank you to all.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, the Whip of the New Democratic Party for bringing to
Government Orders
the attention of the House our appreciation for all of those who serve this institution and allow us to go on at great length, as we have done in this case. I am sure no one at home would understand that this is still January 17. I am sure, if I told most of them, they would say:. "Yes, you are a member of Parliament; I would believe that". On behalf of the government members, I want to indicate that we too appreciate all the help we have received.
I want to compliment the House on the debate. It had tremendous emotion, tremendous tension, tremendous divergence of viewpoints. The House has risen to the occasion and members have participated in a debate that I hope a few of those Canadians across the country did tune in to and did enjoy.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Since there are no more members wishing to take the floor, pursuant to Order made Wednesday, January 16, 1991, the motion of Mrs. Collins is deemed to have been put and a recorded vote is deemed to have been requested and deferred until such time as to be determined by the three House Leaders.

It being 8.04 a.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 1:00 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8.04 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 21,1991