1991-01-22

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from January 17 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 of the motion of Mrs. Collins:
That this question be now put.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order adopted on Monday, January 21, 1991,-

-the House will now hear from one representative of each party on government business, No. 27-

-regarding the Persian Gulf crisis for a period not to exceed 15 minutes each.
The Right hon. Prime minister now has the floor. [English]


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask all members of the House to support Canada's efforts, as a member of the United Nations coalition, to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
I do so on the basis that sometimes, regrettably, war is necessary to secure peace. This is one such moment.
The war in the Persian Gulf did not begin on January 15 but, rather, on August 2 when Saddam Hussein
invaded and occupied Kuwait brutally and entirely without provocation. Saddam Hussein's action threatened the entire region. It gave the world community the choice either to do nothing, as it had done so often in the past and acquiesce in the occupation by Iraq of a country one-tenth its size, or to respond-and the world responded.
The world decided to act within the framework established 46 years earlier in San Francisco, a framework Canadians helped build, namely, the all-important United Nations.
The world did not use force immediately to reverse Saddam Hussein's aggression. Rather, the response was both measured and prudent, giving diplomacy a chance to secure the peace.
From the beginning of August to the end of November, 12 resolutions were passed by the United Nations Security Council ordering Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Almost all of these resolutions were passed unanimously and many of them were drafted and, in some cases, co-sponsored by Canada which was then a member of the Security Council.
This unity of purpose in perspective reflected the totally unacceptable nature of Saddam Hussein's assault on the very important principle of peace and security. It reflected the new spirit of co-operation which had given new life and new hope to the United Nations when tensions between east and west ceased.
Twenty-eight nations sent forces to the gulf to enforce the sanctions. The last five months of 1990 and the first weeks of 1991 witnessed the most intense diplomacy in modem history.
At meetings of the United Nations, the Arab League, the European Community, the non-aligned movement, and among members of the Commonwealth-

-and among the most important members of the "Francophonie"-

January 22, 1991
Government Orders

-and in literally hundreds of contacts between leaders the world over-north and south, east and west, Muslim and non-Muslim, Arab and non-Arab-all avenues to peace were explored.

I am satisfied, Mr Speaker, that throughout these months Canada did all it could do diplomatically in the cause of peace. At this point, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may pay tribute to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who did a remarkable job in difficult circumstances.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: But all avenues led only to the deadend of Saddam Hussein's intransigence.
And so, on January 15th, after a final, 47-day pause for peace, coalition nations followed through with the use of force authorized by the United Nations.
Canada joined in that effort. We were determined to see the United Nations act as it said it would act if Saddam Hussein did not respond to the will of the international community, which had been clearly expressed on many occasions. We were determined to help secure the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait and to help restore peace and security to the region, absolutely and entirely, as called for in UN Security Council resolution 678, whose passage was co-sponsored by Canada.

And so, we asked Canadian men and women to serve their countiy again, this time in the Persian Gulf, accepting the great personal risks that this entails.
These courageous men and women deserve our full support. We owe it to them, to their families, and to history to make our positions clear, to declare where we stand as representatives of the Canadian people. I can tell you where I stand as Prime Minister of Canada on behalf of the Government of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Wishful thinking that evil will go away if we want it to badly enough has no place in serious decision making.
The question was asked, where do Canada's interests lie? How can Canada have interests, legitimate and immediate interests, in a serious conflict thousands of miles away?
The first interest that Canada has at stake is simple morality. A terrible wrong has been perpetrated in Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. The world community has a moral obligation to step in and to stop it.
The second interest we have in this conflict is the construction and maintenance of a system of international peace and security that has the capacity to deter aggression and, where necessary, to proceed with other nations to stop it.
For decades Canada has sought an effective system of international law and order based on the principle of collective security.
With the exception of Korea, we have been stymied in that effort by ideological confrontation-in fact, by the cold war-which paralysed the UN Security Council and which made collective security impossible. Collective security is not an alien objective. It is very much in the best of Canadian traditions.
Geoffrey Pearson, one of Canada's distinguished ambassadors, most recently our ambassador to the Soviet Union, spoke recently of the urgent crisis in the context of Canadian traditions how they have evolved over decades and over generations. Speaking last Sunday of his own family's very distinguished involvement in the building of those traditions, Geoffrey Pearson said:
My father was not a pacifist. His policy was based above all on the
UN's importance to preserving peace. But once war broke out, he
felt that UN member countries should use military intervention to
oppose an aggressor.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a Canadian article of faith, learned at the cost of countless lives, many of them Canadian, in two World Wars and in Korea.
But some Canadians, and some members of this House, I think quite legitimately and no doubt very sincerely, have asked: "Why now? And why here?". Some argue that because the United Nations did not always suppress aggression in the past that it should not not be called upon to do so now.
But when action was not taken in the past, when nations walked away from the United Nations and from their responsibility to uphold the United Nations, the organization was undermined. It's security role atrophied

January 22, 1991

and conflict followed conflict. That is not an argument, Mr. Speaker. It is simply a statement of history.
To say that because the United Nations did not work in the past that it should not be used in the present is to condemn the United Nations to perpetual irrelevance. Given Canada's vital interests in the preservation of multilateral order, we will never condemn an institution so vital to our national interests as the United Nations. We will never condemn that organization to irrelevance. On the contrary, we will work and work unrelentingly to bring it to life and to make it work for the common peace.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If on January 15 the United Nations coalition had fragmented, or had indeed abdicated its responsibilities, I do not think it is inaccurate, Mr. Speaker, to say that the United Nations would have been discredited for decades to come and quite possibly forever. So it is a vital national Canadian interest.
The best hope we have for a safer world is to give the United Nations the indispensable help that it needs to work and in the process of it working, making peace work for all mankind.

The most serious-indeed troubling-question for many members in this debate has been as much about timing as about principle. Why could the world not wait and give sanctions and diplomacy more time?
It is the view of this govemement-and the view of virtually every other U.N. coalition member-that the risks and costs of waiting had become too great to tolerate. If sanctions alone had continued, the plunder of Kuwait would also have continued. When this House debated this issue in September and again in November, Amnesty International had not yet documented the terrible reality of Iraqi brutality-the unplugging of the incubators of Kuwaiti babies, the assaults on Kuwaiti women, the execution of young Kuwaiti men before the eyes of their parents and their brothers and sisters.
We know now. We know as well that over half of Kuwait's population has fled in terror. What would have been left of Kuwait if the world had waited another 6 months, or 16 months or 60 months, or however long it would have taken sanctions to affect Iraq's military capacity, if they ever did? We know now that Saddam
Government Orders
Hussein used the pause for peace not for diplomacy but to lay plans for terrorism and to build his defences.
He did not prepare for peace. He did not even explore the path to peace but instead prepared to launch missiles at innocent civilians in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Those criminal terrorist acts continued this afternoon.
' One week ago today, in my address to this House, I said:
The argument is made by some that Canada should hold itself back now in order to play a peacekeeping role later. Were Saddam Hussein to succeed in his annexation of Kuwait, he would be in a position to threaten the entire Middle East, and he is the process of threatening individual nations as we speak.
That was one week ago.
I went on with:
With the time and the wealth he would gain and acquire, he would add further weapons of mass destruction to his arsenal, including in all probability nuclear weapons. In what position would this put his neighbours? After Iran and Kuwait, what would be his next target? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Would we hold ourselves back again, waiting for the latest atrocities to end so that Canada might then be invited in as part of a peacekeeping force?
Saddam Hussein has threatened directly to attack Israel with weapons of mass destruction. In the face of extraordinary provocation from Iraq, as evidenced by Foreign Minister Aziz' deplorably aggressive threat from Geneva last week directly to mount an assault on Israel, Israel has demonstrated remarkable restraint.
Should Saddam Hussein move against Israel, would we still hold ourselves back in the hope that we would be called in later to help keep what is left of the peace in what is left of the Middle East?
This course is a prescription for neither wisdom nor responsibility and it is not a course that Canada should follow.
Those were my thoughts last week, and most leaders around the world shared the view that I conveyed to the House.
Just hours ago, Saddam Hussein unleashed another unprovoked attack on innocent civilians in Israel. Men, women and children in Israel have become targets in the lethal shelling of that nation by Scud missiles fired from Iraq. Among the reasons that this government stood firm last week when the critical hour came and will continue that policy of firmness until peace has been secured was that we had resolved never to remain silent and indifferent while Israel was threatened with mass destruction

January 22, 1991
Government Orders
and that same philosophy applies to the coalition of nations which fight for freedom in the region today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this war is about fundamental principle and the kind of world we must create. There is no evidence that sanctions were achieving their objective, the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein's forces from Iraq. In fact, our experience with sanctions over the last five and a half months, while having noted some progress which I will allude to momentarily, was far from encouraging. There is no doubt that the Iraqi economy was being affected.

Imports and exports were heavily affected. Rationing had become more widespread. Prices for some goods had increased dramatically. Some factories were closed. But we also know that some foodstuffs and commodities were getting through the embargo.
And that during the period when Saddam Hussein was reducing rations to his own people, he was increasing the rations for his army.
Would the world have persevered with sanctions and would the coalition have held if Iraqi and Kuwaiti citizens straved while Iraqi forces sat tight in Kuwait?
This is a man who inflicted the ultimate sanction on his own people-perhaps a half-million casualties in an eight-year war with Iran that he, himself, started.
This is a man who used gas in war and who turned it on his own citizens.
This is a man who took tens of thousands of people hostage. This is a man who is using rockets to attack civilian population centres, not military installations. This is a man who violated the Geneva convention abusing prisoners of war and threatening to use them as human shields to protect his weapons.
Since we last debated the gulf crisis in November, we have all been able to make a better assessment of this man.
Knowing what we know now, there cannot be many of us who still think that sanctions alone would have stopped him. It might have been possible to believe that when we first debated this crisis in September or even in November. But there cannot be many of us who are confident of that judgment now.
None of us in this House wants war. But sometimes it is necessary to fight for peace. And this is one of those times.

I believe as a nation we must bear our burden in doing by force what diplomacy and sanctions could not do. We must secure Saddam Hussein's withdrawal from Kuwait as 12 United Nations Security Council resolutions demand. We must maintain solidarity with our coalition partners within the region and outside it, many of whom are bearing a far larger burden than we. What would the world think of us if we withdrew our forces when the going got tough-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could just remind the right hon. Prime Minister that we are bound by 15 minutes in the address. I am sure the House would indulge the right hon. Prime Minister and, of course, the same should be expected in the other speeches.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
What would the world think of us if we withdrew our forces when the going got tough and we retired to the sidelines? More important, what would we as Canadians think of ourselves? Canada will do its share.

I can tell Canadians that we have the full capacity now to meet the obligations we have assumed and that all of our obligations can be met without the introduction of a policy of conscription.

All members of this House want to see this conflict end. Of that, there can be absolutely no doubt. Some members argue that we should have a pause in the conflict now.

In our view, such a pause would be counterproductive. Resolution 678-the resolution that Canada co-sponso-
January 22, 1991

red-has already provided a pause. The government sees no point in pausing again. The proper response to Saddam Hussein's intransigence and brutality is not to reward him with a respite from the war he started. It is in no one's interest to make it any easier for him to position more missiles to attack the cities of Israel and Saudi Arabia. And we are not going to take a chance at letting him regroup, rebuild his damaged infrastucture, and deepen his defences.
The first order of business is to win the war. The second order of business is to win the peace.
Saddam Hussein has exploited the fissures and fractures of the most volatile region in the world.

This is a region where weapons of mass destruction exist. This is a region that has made arms merchants rich. It is a region where many are poor and politics are notoriously unstable. The history of this region is that one war has simply set the stage for the next war and, in the process of doing that, many of the legitimate claims of peoples in the area have been unaddressed, unresolved, and persist to this very day.
While the battles continue and Kuwait is being freed, while the United Nations resolutions are being implemented, Canadian diplomats have begun to consider what to do afterward to bring peace and security to this turbulent region. The military victory we seek will be short and bitter, if we do not build a just and a durable peace. We will spare no effort in seeking solutions to these problems.
Seeking solutions to these problems starts and ends with the United Nations because, if the United Nations is not strengthened in the course of these debates and these actions, there will not be the viable instrument required by the entire world to shape a durable peace in the Middle East when hostilities are over. And that goes to the very heart of why Canada is in the Middle East today with our troops. We are there to defend the fundamental interests of the United Nations because, when we are defending the United Nations, Canada is defending the cause of a future peace.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: So, if we succeed in maintaining our unity of purpose now, the problems of this region can be
Government Orders
addressed by a United Nations that has successfully stood the test of an important crisis. If we do not succeed in maintaining our unity of purpose, those problems will fester in the face of a discredited United Nations.
Throughout this crisis the government has taken a clear and a consistent position. We have opposed aggression, we have supported the United Nations, and we have determined that Canada will carry its share of the burden in the defence of freedom. There has been no shift of position, and no one can be in doubt where the government has stood from the very beginning.
Last November, in the second of three debates that this House has had on the gulf crisis, the government outlined Canadian interests, stated our intention to support the will of the UN, and set out what action might be necessary if Saddam Hussein continued to defy the world. These issues were debated fully at the time, and since January 15 we have debated whether or not to continue to support the United Nations and its resolutions.
Since August 2, this House has debated Canadian policy toward the gulf crisis for over 75 hours. The debate has been much more extensive here than in the United Kingdom, Australia, France, the United States or other democracies around the world. It is very much a tribute to all parliamentarians that they insisted and obtained a debate of these dimensions on such a vital problem affecting world peace.
Parliament has had many opportunities to express itself on the principles that have been defended here, as it should, and the government has assumed responsibility for its decisions, as it must. We are confident that we have followed both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. I call on all members, including those members who may have reasons they have eloquently explained on the floor of this House in different circumstances, to support the motion before the House today to reaffirm Canada's support for the United Nations.
No Canadian wanted this war. Every Canadian wanted peace. The choice that Saddam Hussein was given was one between war and peace, and he unfortunately chose war. Given his deliberate choice, Canada has followed a resolute and unswerving course. We have chosen to stand with the United Nations, we have chosen to stand against aggression, and we have chosen to stand up and

Government Orders
be counted when freedom and world peace were under serious challenge.
On December 11, 1957, Lester Pearson-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in some difficulty. I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister to close his remarks as soon as possible.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I regret going somewhat overtime. I apologize to members of the House. I will be happy to conclude in a moment and I will be happy to reciprocate, as I have indicated, by extending to my hon. friends, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, all the time that they need to make their points of view known on a very important question.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to conclude; it will take a moment. If my hon. friends will give me the moment to conclude, I will be happy to do so. I know that we will accord the same courtesy to all members of the House. I simply wanted to conclude by quoting Mr. Pearson when he accepted the Nobel peace prize. He said:
There can be no enduring and creative peace if people are unfree. The instinct for personal and national freedom cannot be destroyed, and the attempt to do so by totalitarian and despotic government will ultimately make not only for internal trouble but for international conflict.
Let us decide together, today, Mr. Speaker, to support the United Nations in its deeds as well as its words.
Let us help to free Kuwait. And let us work together to restore peace and security in that important region, confident that, having done the right thing today, we can look forward to a more peaceful world tomorrow.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak before a nation at war.
We are appalled by the brutal treatment Iraq gives its prisoners of war and by its cynical attacks on Israel. Less than a week after the war began, many have lost their
lives, and material destruction is increasing hour by hour. That is the tragedy of war, Mr. Speaker.
As a member of this House, for the greater part of my life I have done my best to serve the Canadian people. During those years-in Parliament, in cabinet and in the opposition-I learned a lot about Canada and Canadians. I learned among other things that Canada is a peace-loving country. Internationally, we have built a reputation as peacekeepers, not policemen. We must thank the Pearsons and the Trudeaus who gave us a legacy of which we are so proud today.
I said before that we did not give peace a chance in the Persian Gulf.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: And I still say so.
During the past few days, I have spoken to Canadians from coast to coast. I also consulted with my colleagues in caucus. This war is not an easy matter to discuss for any member of this House.
We all agree on the objectives: to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait. We all agree that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant. He proved that when he invaded and occupied Kuwait last August. By attacking Israel last week and again today, without provocation, he gave us further proof. By mistreating hostages and prisoners, he completed the case against him.
When the Security Council voted in favour of economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, the Liberals supported that decision. When on August 25, the Security Council authorized the use of military force to enforce sanctions, the Liberals again supported its decision.
When the government tabled in the House a resolution condemning Saddam Hussein and expanding the UN role, the Liberals supported this motion as well. In November, however, when the government tabled another motion, this time allowing the use of force, the Liberals said: No, not now. We told the House and we told Canadians a war could still be averted. The embargo and the sanctions had been in place for only a few weeks and could not have made an impact.



Diplomatic initiatives needed more time. We had feared that the imposition of an early deadline was merely an ultimatum that would inevitably lead to a war. Unfortunately we were right.
We made the argument that if the new world order is to succeed, it cannot begin by attempting to legitimize the hasty use of force. We believe the primary goal of the United Nations must be the rule of law, not the use of force. And, if the United Nations is to be effective, it must advocate the use of force only as a last resort and then only under the UN flag.
Last week, on January 14, before the war began, we again urged Parliament to give sanctions and diplomacy more time and to hold off on the early use of force.
Some may fault us for our caution, but I make no apologies. When the lives of human beings are at stake, when the ecology of the planet is at stake, when the future stability of the Middle East is at stake, we will always exercise caution.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: For its part, the New Democratic Party told us that force should never be used. We reject that view.
The government, on the other hand, was prepared to rush us into war. By rejecting our amendment last week, the government gave the green light to the early use of force.
Now it is too late. We will never know whether diplomacy, embargoes, and sanctions would have worked, never. They have given way to bullets and bombs. And war, contrary to what some may think, is not like a chess game. In war, sometimes the pieces fall off the board.
Nevertheless, whatever our views as to the wisdom of an early war, last Wednesday the government rejected our amendment to maintain sanctions. That same evening, war came to the Persian Gulf. The next night Iraq attacked Israel, a non-combatant state.
Tbday, therefore, we are faced with a new set of circumstances. The situation has changed since last Tuesday. The tragedy of war is with us once again. We must now work to ensure that it is as brief as possible.
Government Orders
We must make every effort to create a long-lasting, stable, post-war peace throughout the Middle East.
And we deplore the fact that it may be more difficult for Canada to act as a peacekeeper after this war has come to an end. But we can still help to make a lasting peace. To do so, we must be vigilant and take every opportunity to bring the war to a speedy conclusion, and bring an enduring peace to the Middle East.
Liberals want to respond to the concerns of Canadians. Today, I have announced that we will establish a task force on peace in the Middle East. This task force will be made up of members-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This task force will be made of members of the Liberal caucus and concerned Canadians. Liberals want to help find peace for this troubled region.
Today, after war has begun, we are being called upon to vote on a resolution. It reads:
That this House reaffirms its support of the United Nations in
ending the aggression by Iraq against Kuwait.
We on this side of the House believe that this resolution should have been brought to a vote before January 15, as was done in the U.S. Congress. Then, such a resolution would have been relevant. Today, it is not relevant. War has started. The government has committed our troops.
We are very concerned about the Canadian men and women who are now at war. They are putting their lives at risk, and they must know that Canadians are solidly behind them.
We believe that the resolution we are voting on tonight should have been written accordingly. It should simply have stated that this House of Commons affirms its support for our troops in the gulf; the government was not interested in conveying that clear message.
Yesterday, I approached the Prime Minister. I urged him to accept a new resolution instead of the one we are debating now. I urge him to accept a new resolution stating:
Given that hostilities have broken out in the Persian Gulf, and
given that Canada is a participant in the coalition, this House
reaffirms its support of Canadian forces in the Persian Gulf.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refused. In the circumstances, we on this side of the House recognized that many would try to interpret a vote tonight against

January 22, 1991
Government Orders
the government's resolution as a vote against our troops and a vote for Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Speaker, we firmly believe that we must do nothing that could be twisted and used to demoralize our troops. For this reason, because we stand squarely behind our Canadian forces in the gulf, we will vote in favour of the motion.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: However, our vote does not mean that we approve of the government's actions. This vote does not approve of the Conservatives' management of this crisis before the war broke out. Nor is this a vote to approve all the government's actions since the war broke out or its future actions.

I repeat, we feel very strongly that we must not do anything that could be distorted and used to demoralize our troops.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: For that reason-because we support our Canadian forces in the gulf-we will vote for the resolution. Our vote shall not be interpreted, however, as support for the way in which the government has handled this matter. It is not a vote for the government's handling of this crisis before the war began. Nor is it a vote which condones all the government's actions since the war began, or in the days ahead.
The choice we make today, Mr. Speaker, is to offer our support to our sons and daughters who are serving their country in the Persian Gulf.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is for this reason, now that we are in war, as I said last Wednesday night we have to be behind our troops who are fighting there.
We pray to God they will be coming back to Canada as soon as possible.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, a great deal has occurred since we began debating this motion last week. Last week war was a possibility; today it is a reality.
It is reality too that we are all shocked by the faces of the prisoners of war, the unprovoked bombing of Israel and with the loss of many lives, although we do not have details, except for those provided by some of the American reports and others. I think most of us know that there must be a much greater loss of life than we are aware of. These are the real images of war.
Because so much has happened since last week, I think it is important to reiterate what it is we are debating today. We are not debating whether or not our Canadian military is made up of brave men and women. We are not debating the United Nations. We are debating whether Canada should have participated in the war.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: We have consistently opposed Canada's participation in this war because we do not believe that economic sanctions and diplomatic measures were given a full chance. We do believe that the January 15 deadline was an artificial one; one that give a momentum towards war, instead of a real pause for peace.
We believe, Mr. Speaker, that the United Nations should not be authorizing member countries to go to war. Let us remember that these are not forces which are under the United Nations flag.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: This resolution authorized the use of
force by any of the signing countries.
Finally, common sense tells us that Canada can make a contribution, but that Canada can make a more valuable contribution than simply as a participant in the military force.
In dealing with this issue, Mr. Speaker, we are confronted with three options: the options of supporting and the strengthening of economic sanctions; of renewing and continuing diplomatic efforts; or with war. Every option contained risks. The options of sanctions and diplomacy have the risks that come with time. The option of war contains the risk of loss of human life as well as economic, political and environmental disaster. One set of risks must be weighed against the other set of risks when making these decisions. We weighed these options
January 22, 1991

and we decided that the tragic consequences of war were too high not to give diplomacy and economic sanctions a chance.

A week ago, Mr. Speaker, I stood in the House to explain that my party is against this war, that my party is against Canada's offensive participation.
Mr. Speaker, again I rise today to tell you that my party's position remains unchanged.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: We stand firm: our commitment to peace is irreversible. This is why we are going to vote against this resolution.

Everyone in this House cares deeply about the young men and women serving in the gulf. We pray for their safe return and we share the anguish of their families. At the same time, we remind the government why our troops were sent to the Persian Gulf. They were sent to enforce economic sanctions, an action which they accomplished with pride.

As this debate is drawing to a close, Mr. Speaker, I should like to talk about what this war means to the United Nations and about the role Canada might play to promote peace.
The Prime Minister suggests that failure to support this war is tantamount to betraying the United Nations and its objectives. I totally disagree. Mr. Speaker, only 28 of the 150 UN member countries have joined the coalition, and less than half of these 28 countries are taking part in the military offensive manoeuvres.
Is the government suggesting that these countries-in excess of 100, a majority which is not involved in this offensive war-could not care less about the United Nations or do not believe in the future of the organization? I say no, that is not the case! Does it suggest that these countries are less intent on calling for Saddam Hussein's withdrawal from Kuwait? I say no.

We may stand alone today in this House in opposing this war, but we do not stand alone among Canadians.
Government Orders
The former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations Stephen Lewis, and the former ambassador to the United Nations on peace and disarmament, Douglas Roche oppose the war. To oppose this war is not to oppose the United Nations, it is to oppose a militaristic vision of the United Nations.
The Prime Minister said quite rightly that wishful thinking will not make evil go away. No one here is talking about wishful thinking. What we are talking about today is the meaningful role that Canada might play and the future that the United Nations must adopt if we are to find that vision of a new world order when conciliation replaces threats, where justice replaces vengeance, where dialogue replaces destruction and where collective international action is based on protecting lives instead of on waging war.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, that is my party's vision and that is why we will not support the government's motion. We are not voting against the United Nations, we are voting against this war.

But, Mr. Speaker, we are at war, a war which may be long and difficult, and which will cost dearly in terms of human lives, economic repercussions, environmental impact, and the future prospects of that region.
In less than a week censored television reports have made us witnesses to massive bombing raids over Baghdad and other cities in Israel. We watched with horror some of the videos on prisoners of war. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it did not come as a surprise because that is precisely what people had predicted.

That is why we said the risk of war does not need to be taken at this time. We must pursue to the end the other alternatives, before we make that decision.
There is no one in my party, no one in the House, and no one in Canada who is not appalled by what we have seen in the images of war. The question now is: What should Canada do? What meaningful role can Canada best play in contributing to the end of this war, the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, which we all agree

January 22, 1991
Government Orders
is the objective, and the establishment of a lasting and just peace in the Middle East?
The government clearly believes that an offensive military role is the role that Canada should play. The Liberal Party is in agreement with it. But my party disagrees.
To play a meaningful role, we can provide other services equally needed by deploying our military services to continue to provide medical assistance. We can undertake a number of initiatives, such as using the Canadian forces to assist the hundreds of thousands of refugees that this war is creating, using Canadian vessels to escort ships carrying desperately needed aid in the Horn of Africa, and increasing funding and support for the International Red Cross.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Canada can be boldly pursuing with vigour diplomatic initiatives at the United Nations which show promise of a negotiated resolution to a war.
One of the greatest tragedies in this, when we talk about the meaningful role for Canada, and where we can be most effective, struck me this morning as I read an article in The Toronto Star by a reporter in Jordan. He had been threatened with beatings. He wrote: "Once welcomed as peacekeepers and honest brokers throughout the Arab world, we join the enemies' ranks in the eyes of many Jordanians."
That was the risk. As well as being involved in the offensive aspect of this war, we have lost so much of our credibility to participate and provide an effective role in the mediation and peacekeeping aspects.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Throughout this debate, I and my colleagues have attempted to put forward our view, but also to put forward our alternatives. I have forwarded some of these alternatives to the Secretary of State for External Affairs as he requested me to do last week.
In these ways, we believe Canada can play a useful and constructive role. We will not be a participant in the war, but a true maker of peace.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I want to close today on a more personal note. I, like many others in the House, have
travelled in my riding and in others areas in the past couple of days. We can all appreciate what a difficult time this is for Canadians. On the one hand, everyone agrees that aggressors like Saddam Hussein must be stopped. Yet, on the other hand, there is a great reluctance to see Canada involved in a war.
The government says war is the only way. My party says there is another way, a peaceful way. Our position is clear, the position of my party is clear. We have listened to all sides of the debate, but this war, and the devastation and death it brings with it, is not the solution in our opinion. It is not the way to begin a new world order.
Just one year ago, there was so much promise. There seemed to be real hope for a more just world. War is a betrayal of that hope. War represents the same old way of doing things. War is madness. The option of killing people to resolve disputes must disappear in a new world order.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Finally, I realize that a change in government policy would require courage and strength: courage to tell a close friend that you might disagree; strength to play the role of peacemaker when others are intent on war.

This war will indeed cause the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. They are paying the price of this war. Families are suffering as a result of decisions made by politicians.
Canada must seek to put an end to this war, put an end to it for the families of Canadian men and women in the gulf, put an end to it for Israeli families, put an end to it for families everywhere.

We say let the voice of Canada be a voice for peace, a strong and clear voice of hope for a true new world order, a new way of doing things which will provide hope for all Canadians and for everyone throughout the world.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 21, 1991, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion of Mrs.
January 22, 1991

Collins to the previous question on Government Business No. 27, concerning the Persian Gulf crisis.
The hon. member for Calgary West, on a point of order.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and the motion does require you to ring what is called a 15-minute bell. I think there is a predisposition in the House to let the bell ring for perhaps one or two minutes and we will come down the aisle. You can have that expectation that the House will be ready for the vote in somewhat less than the 15 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West has given the House a suggestion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The first question is on the motion of Mrs. Collins. Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please rise.


Some hon. members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed to on division.
The next question is on the main motion.
Is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
The hon. member on a point of order.


Mr. Corbett:: I simply want to express to the House, Mr. Speaker, that due to a problem in communications within my own office, I was not aware that the vote was being taken when it was being taken. Had it been apparent to me that the vote was taking place, I would have voted with the government. I believe very strongly that we have taken the proper position this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, January 21, 1991, this House stands adjourned to the call of the Chair.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 1, 1991