FAIT Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 6, 2003

0905

The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.))

The Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs)

0910

0915

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Bill Graham

0920

The Chair

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Bill Graham

0925

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Bill Graham

Ms. Francine Lalonde

0930

Mr. Bill Graham

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.)

0935

The Chair

Mr. Bill Graham

0940

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood —St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Bill Graham

0945

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Bill Graham

0950

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Mr. Bill Graham

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Mr. Bill Graham

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Bill Graham

The Chair

Mr. Bill Graham

0955

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Bill Graham

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Bill Graham

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

1000

The Chair

Mr. Bill Graham

The Chair

Mr. Bill Graham

The Chair

1010

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.)

1015

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

1020

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

1025

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

1030

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)

1035

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton

1040

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

1045

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. André Harvey

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

1050

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

1055

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 016

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 6, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): Good morning. With your permission, we're going to start right now. I understand that the minister needs to be in the House of Commons by 10 o'clock because of the motion of the Canadian Alliance and for the debate.

This morning, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our order is consideration of the situation of Iraq. Appearing is the Honourable Bill Graham, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. With him is Mr. John McNee, the Assistant Deputy Minister, Africa and Middle East; and James Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Global and Security Policy.

I understand, Mr. Minister, you don't have a written speech. You're going to do an introduction, and then we will go to questions and answers.

The rule this morning is ten minutes for each party. If you want to share your time, it will be within the allocated ten minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Minister, you have the floor.

[English]

The Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's always an honour to come before the committee. I do apologize for having to leave at 10 o'clock, but as you pointed out, I have to participate in the debate in the House starting at that time.

We're here to discuss the grave situation in Iraq. In the last few weeks, as you know, diplomatic efforts, including those of this government, have been intensifying, as the international community focuses on the essential issue of the need for Iraq to meet its international obligations by disarming. Our objective is the complete elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, in accordance with the resolution of the United Nations, including Security Council Resolution 1441.

There's no doubt that for us the UN remains the best way to pursue this goal, and we'll continue to work with our friends and allies to pursue diplomatic efforts in that direction. The Government of Iraq must understand the clear message being sent by the international community. The only way for this crisis to be resolved peacefully is through Iraq's full, active, and unconditional cooperation with the weapons inspection process, as called for under Resolution 1441. The choice is up to Iraq.

Unfortunately, the current reality is that Iraq continues to avoid full compliance with Resolution 1441. Dr. Blix made it clear last week in his update to the Security Council that more active cooperation is required by Iraq. Now Secretary Powell's report to the UN Security Council yesterday made it even clearer that Iraq has not been fully complying with the inspections process.

Resolution 1441's operative paragraph 4 clearly stipulates: “failure by Iraq at any time to comply with,and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute afurther material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council forassessment”.

At this point, time is running out for Iraq and the diplomatic pressure is intensifying. Prime Minister Chrétien and I have been consulting with our allies and partners. This week alone I have spoken by phone with my colleagues from Spain, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Turkey, Egypt, and the European Union. Despite some differences in approach, I can assure you that all are agreed on the need for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and the need to maintain international pressure on him to do so. We all support the role of the UN in this process.

I indicated to my counterparts that the international community must remain united in maintaining diplomatic pressure on Iraq, and I assure you that your government will remain resolutely engaged in this respect.

Parliament also plays an important role in our management of this issue, as testified by the work of this committee and the many discussions we've held in the House. I know that the committee is establishing its work program for the coming weeks and that some of you have suggested inviting Iraqi officials to meet with the committee.

The committee, of course--and I want to insist upon this--is master of its own agenda, but I would suggest that the focus now must remain on the UN process. The Iraqis have always had ample opportunity to make their case to the UN, and an invitation by Canada at this time could be perceived as a signal that Iraq has alternatives to full compliance--a signal that none of us would want to send at this crucial juncture.

¿ (0910)

[Translation]

As you know, I also had the opportunity to meet with Secretary of State Powell in Washington one week ago. I reminded him of Canada's position, namely that this matter must be dealt with through the United Nations, and I reiterated that Canada's decisions would reflect the will of the international community as expressed through the Security Council.

Secretary of State Powell and the US government understand and respect Canada's position. Friendship and alliance does not mean that two sovereign countries have to adopt identical positions. However, our objective is the same, namely the full and verifiable disarmament of Iraq.

Yesterday, Secretary of State Powell made a compelling presentation to the Security Council, demonstrating how Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1441. He presented evidence that merely added to the list of outstanding questions concerning Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. There are some very real concerns about the possible existence of hidden laboratories where biological weapons are being made, or about the fact that materials used to make weapons of mass destruction remain unaccounted for.

I congratulate Mr. Powell and the American government for releasing additional information about this matter and for presenting to the international community their country's point of view and expertise, with a view to assisting the UN Security Council in arriving at a more judicious decision.

I would also point out that Mr. Powell presented his arguments to the Security Council and that through the UN, the United States are arguing their case against Iraq to the international community.

The next important stage in the process is the return of Dr. Blix and Mr. El-Baradei to Iraq on February 8 where they hope to obtain greater cooperation from Iraqi officials. They are scheduled to present their report to the Security Council on February 14.

I would like to underscore once again the excellent work that is being done by UN inspectors in this difficult undertaking. Acting with extreme professionalism, they are giving Iraq one last chance to comply with the terms of the resolution. We remain convinced that when the UN chief inspectors ask for more time to do their work, we must give it to them. However, giving Iraq more time will serve no purpose if the country fails to co-operate fully, actively and sincerely.

The situation is very different from what we witnessed in the 1990s. The international community is no longer prepared to tolerate Iraq's duplicity.

[English]

There's much discussion now of the possibility of or need for a second resolution. In fact, there's a need to state clearly and unequivocally once again to Iraq the will of the international community. Canada would support such an approach, but Resolution 1441 has already made Iraq's obligations very clear, and it enables us to ask two questions.

First, is Iraq in violation of its international obligations? The answer to this is becoming increasingly clear through the inspections process, through the report of Dr. Blix, and now through Secretary Powell's report yesterday. Iraq, quite evidently, is failing to comply fully, actively, and openly with the inspections.

That raises the second question, which is whether Iraq's failure to comply justifies the use of force at this time. Here Resolution 1441 gives the answer that force is not justified at the present time, since the process of gathering information is still underway. Dr. Blix is returning to Iraq. He'll be meeting with Saddam Hussein next week, and on February 14 he'll report back again to the Security Council. If we are then told that Iraq continues to be in non-compliance, a debate will ensue among the international community about what the appropriate response should be.

Clearly, we all--and I insist all--want to avoid war, and there's still a window of opportunity for war to be avoided if Iraq chooses to change its approach and cooperate fully. But the timelines here are short, and the need to take a decision cannot be deferred indefinitely.

I believe, colleagues, the approach Canada has consistently taken on Iraq has served us well. The United Nations has stayed the course, the United States has stayed the course with the United Nations process, and the inspectors are doing their work in Iraq under its mandate. Should it be found that Iraq is unwilling to comply and cooperate with inspectors in this disarmament, then Canada expects the Security Council will consider the next steps and act on its responsibilities, in conformity with Resolution 1441.

I'd like to conclude by pointing out to you another matter that is often forgotten during these debates. No one has been more engaged in and concerned about the issue of Iraq than the countries of the region, who have been trying to convince Saddam Hussein to comply with his international obligations. I recently spoke with the foreign ministers of Turkey, Egypt, and Syria. They all want peace, and they recognize what the consequences of war would be to their region in terms of their economies, terrible destabilization, and humanitarian crises. But they're also concerned that Iraq be disarmed.

They and the people of Iraq, like us, look forward to a time when Iraq can be a stable and constructive member of the international community and a country of positive influence in the Middle East. But for this to happen, the leadership of Iraq must bring their country in line with its international obligations, or suffer the serious consequences through the process stated in Resolution 1441. That has been the consistent position of the Canadian government; it's been the voice of Canada on the world stage throughout the Iraqi crisis.

The international leaders we have spoken with tell us that they value our independent stance in this respect. We fully intend to ensure that Canada continues to advance a foreign policy reflecting Canadian values by supporting the UN process and the international community in the weeks and months ahead.

Thank you very much.

¿ (0915)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Graham. Thank you for presenting to us such a clear overview of the situation. I'm sure colleagues will have many questions for you.

[English]

We're going to start with Mr. Martin, please.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Merci.

I will be sharing my time with Mr. Jaffer.

Minister Graham, Mr. Wright, and Mr. McNee, thank you for appearing here today. Time is short, so I'll just pose my questions.

Canadians want clarity. Mr. Graham, you've clearly and correctly stated that Saddam Hussein is a pathological liar and a murderer, and is in violation of Resolution 1441. Is the position of Canada to join a military option, if the United States chooses to go in, based on the fact that Saddam Hussein is violating Resolution 1441?

Secondly, in your view, do we need a UN resolution for a military option, or is the mere violation of Resolution 1441 adequate to utilize that option?

Very briefly, is there a post-conflict reconstruction plan for Iraq if a military option is invoked--a far more complicated and difficult situation to deal with, particularly with the implications of the Kurds in the north, internecine conflict between the Kurds, the Shi'ah, and the Sunni, and the outlying implications for Syria, Iran, and Turkey?

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

[English]

Mr. Bill Graham: Thank you very much.

We always come back to this question of clarity. I think the position has been very clear in terms of the Prime Minister having stated from the very beginning that we support an action if, at the absolute worst-case scenario, force is necessary, and it will be supported through the UN process.

Now, then you say, does this require a second resolution? Does this require this? Can we speculate on what it is? I have to tell you that we won't know the answer to those questions until Dr. Blix reports back to the Security Council. Clearly, the road map is there in Resolution 1441. It calls upon Iraq to cooperate and calls for serious consequences if Iraq fails to cooperate. But the Security Council will have to evaluate that in the light of the evidence from Dr. Blix.

All I can say at this time is that clearly Dr. Blix's previous report, together with the persuasive case put by Secretary of State Colin Powell, now puts--if I can put it in layman's terms--the ball firmly in the court of Iraq to show that it is in actual active conformity with Resolution 1441, which it has not done up to this day. So it's going to require some substantial changes by Iraq, or the Security Council is going to be called upon to determine what the appropriate next step is.

Now, there's a debate as to whether that next step should be less violent than the use of force, that there are other possible steps. That debate will take place in the Security Council when the time comes for Dr. Blix's position. But Canada has always taken the position that if force is authorized through a process, whether it's another resolution, a declaration by the Security Council.... I don't think you have to say a resolution. The lawyers inform me that there are other ways the Security Council could speak on this matter. Let's see how they do speak, and Canada will support that determination by the world community.

I just want to go back to your other point, Dr. Martin, on the post-conflict reconstruction. I totally agree with you. This is a very serious issue. I met with a group of Canadian NGOs the other night, and people are very concerned about this. There's both the humanitarian dimension to this that has to be looked at and on top of that the whole issue of the Middle East and how it's going to be affected by this.

It also goes beyond the Middle East. I've spoken to the Indian foreign minister, who is concerned even as far as India, about Pakistan being destabilized, the Muslim community in India, etc. We have to look at these issues. That's why we've been most active in resisting the idea of a war, because war always has unforeseen consequences.

I think the United States has been very responsible now in hesitating to go to war because it recognizes those consequences. But the consequences of not disarming Saddam Hussein are equally terrible, and that's where we have to insist that Saddam Hussein be disarmed.

I think we're on the way to doing that through the cooperative efforts of international communities, in which we're engaged. The long-term and humanitarian consequences of such an action are now starting to be considered. I'm actively consulting with Ms. Whelan and with others in the government as to what we should be able to do as a country.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jaffer.

[Translation]

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Minister, do you honestly believe that Saddam Hussein and Iraq want to work with the UN and change their stand? So far, the evidence would point to the contrary. If we believe Iraq is going to do an about-face, why then is Canada not trying to influence its ally and have it wait until another UN resolution is adopted before taking action in the Middle East? Why is Canada not a party to the discussions on this matter? As I see it, that's the question many Canadians are asking themselves. Why is their government standing on the sidelines?

Mr. Bill Graham: First of all, I honestly feel that Dr. Blix and Colin Powell presented compelling evidence to us yesterday that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had not complied sufficiently. Having said this, even the United States are willing to give Saddam Hussein one last chance, just as they are willing to give Dr. Blix a chance to do his job, because that's the best way of averting a war. We are continuing to put pressure on Saddam Hussein, because this is the only way to show him that he has no choice in this matter. That's been our stated position from the outset, Mr. Jaffer. You say that Canada is standing on the sidelines. Canada was not standing on the sidelines when the Prime Minister met with President Bush last year. Canada was not absent from the process when I met with Secretary of State Powell in Washington, nor was that the case when I spoke regularly over the phone with Jack Straw and others. We have always exercised active, positive diplomacy with a view to ensuring that the international system remains credible. As I indicated to Mr. Powell in Washington, the United States needs the international community, and it is very much aware of that fact.

For the US to launch a unilateral attack on Iraq without UN sanction would be tantamount to marginalizing a forum that is absolutely vital in terms of addressing other problems, such as North Korea. In the 21st century, we will need a system of global governance, one in keeping with the interdependent world in which we live. We mustn't lose sight of this reality and we must continue to work with the UN, a strong, coherent and permanent voice. I disagree that Canada has been absent from these proceedings. On the contrary, we have been very present. You may not like what we've been saying, but you can't deny that we are making our presence felt. However, it's impossible to please everyone.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Graham.

Go ahead, Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you.

I'm sorry, sir, that you haven't managed to please us in so far as the UN resolutions are concerned. However, you mustn't despair. Would you not agree at this time that a second resolution is absolutely indispensable, given that we're dealing with a question as fundamental as whether or not war is legitimate, as many people feel it is not? The legitimacy of war must be proven.

When the inspectors are in Iraq, Saddam Hussein does not appear to present a serious, or imminent threat, conditions that must be present in order to launch a unilateral attack without UN sanction.

Only the US and a handful of other countries interpret Resolution 1441 as paving the way for a unilateral attack, without any need for a second resolution. A second resolution is needed, however, to lend an attack of this kind any credibility. Failing this, it will be difficult to establish the legitimacy of a war. I'm merely pointing out the Pentagon's plan, which I find very disturbing indeed: 3,000 bombs to be dropped on Baghdad over a two-day period, because the presidential palaces are located in Baghdad. Consider the fate of the citizens, of the women and children. Despite the fact that everyone agrees Saddam Hussein is a dictator and is guilty of duplicity, does the planned punishment even begin to fit the crime?

A second resolution is warranted, otherwise, it will be extremely difficult to legitimize this war in the eyes of the international community.

The Chair: Mr. Graham.

Mr. Bill Graham: I will defer my comments on your last remark. I totally agree with you that it is very important to maintain a sense of proportion in international law and in politics. People are no longer sent to the gallows for stealing a loaf of bread, as was once the case. However, one has to bear in mind that it's not a question here of balancing inspections with the use of force in Iraq. It's a matter of assessing the risk that Saddam Hussein, given his past behaviour, will use weapons of mass destruction if given the opportunity to use them. He has already shown that he is capable of such action by launching Scud missile attacks against Israel and the residents of cities such as Tel Aviv. If these Scud missiles were armed with chemical or biological weapons, the consequences could be horrific. That is the risk and the response is proportional to the risk.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Inspectors have not been allowed in since 1998. We know Saddam Hussein has been unable to rebuild his network and nuclear capability, as the Chief Inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency observed. Saddam Hussein has had the “capability“ of using weapons of mass destruction since 1998, but he has not used it. If inspections are ongoing, as France has noted, and if countries pass along intelligence to the inspectors, should it not be possible to disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully? Shouldn't that be our ultimate goal, given the price of war?

¿ (0930)

Mr. Bill Graham: That is our ultimate goal, but we must allow Dr. Blix to do his job. That's the problem. You may argue that Iraq does not have any weapons of mass destruction, but Colin Powell argued persuasively the other day that the opposite was true. I'm not pleased with that, but under the circumstances, Canada's policy is sound. The UN system must be credible. Dr. Blix is a credible individual. A reliable inspection system has been put in place and Dr. Blix is set to report to the UN Security Council on February 14 and to provide us with an objective status report vis-à-vis Resolution 1441. I don't want to predict the report's findings. Obviously, we need to wait and hear what he has to say.

Getting back to your first comment, a debate is raging within the international community as to whether Resolution 1441 effectively sets out conditions which would sanction an armed attack on Saddam Hussein without the benefit of a second resolution, or whether in fact a second resolution is required. We are all politicians here. You know as well as I do that when it was drafted, the resolution was somewhat ambiguous about this point, the reason being to give nations an opportunity to discuss this beforehand. Some wanted the text of the resolution to be clarified, while others felt the wording was already too specific. In the world of international diplomacy, a resolution should always allow for a compromise position.

That's why the Prime Minister said that while a second resolution wasn't necessarily required, it was by far the preferred option--the US also feels the same way--and I reiterated this when I met with Mr. Powell in Washington. The risk that the United States and other allied states run by deciding to act without UN sanction is the fallout, political and otherwise, that Dr. Martin alluded to earlier. The backing of the UN would make everyone feel more secure. It would guarantee the peace and safety of those who would take part in an offensive.

Having said this, we need to wait until February 14 and to see what the Security Council plans to do. We shouldn't speculate at this time on what might transpire in the weeks ahead. All I can say is that we have a system in place, a system that works. If we continue to pressure Saddam Hussein, there is a chance of averting a war. Let's focus on this and not on speculation because in the world, there is much that we cannot predict. If we remain focused on the issue at hand, I believe the outcome will be the best we could possibly hope for.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Graham.

Go ahead, Mr. Eggleton.

[English]

Mr. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, the international community I think has a pretty strong consensus that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and Iraq would be better off without him. The international community would also say that they flouted the UN resolutions over the years and that they have to be held accountable for Resolution 1441.

However, I think for a lot of people--and I hear you saying it as well--war is a last resort. Mr. Powell yesterday gave some evidence. It's strong evidence, but in fact a lot of what they've given is really circumstantial evidence. If you had to go to a court of law to get proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it would be very questionable whether you'd get it. Now, you might say that's not required here, but when war is the bottom line, certainly the burden of proof has to be very strong.

Let me ask you three questions. Mr. Powell continually uses this phrase “material breach”. If it is found that in fact there is a material breach--and I'd like to know whether you feel there's a material breach--does that automatically mean the next step is war, or are there some steps between material breach and war? And if there are, what are they? What would Canada think would be the appropriate steps to take next if there is a material breach?

My second question is, if Mr. Blix comes back on February 14, Valentine's Day, and says he needs more time--says what he's been saying for some time--that he hasn't found anything yet, no smoking gun yet, but he thinks more time is needed, and the United States at that point says “Look, enough is enough. Time's up. Let's move on to the consequences of material breach”, what does Canada do then?

I know this is a hypothetical question, and I used to avoid hypothetical questions as much as I could, but you know, we could wake up one morning and find ourselves reading about bombs being dropped in Baghdad, so we don't have an awful lot of time to get this all figured out. So what happens if he says he wants more time but the United States says that's enough? And that's very soon, the 14th.

Now the third question is, the other phrase that gets used a lot by the United States along with “material breach” is “clear and present danger”. Well, the way I look at it, if I had to rank countries in terms of clear and present danger, I'd be putting North Korea ahead of Iraq. North Korea is even threatening war right now. Why are we not hearing the tough talk about North Korea? Why are there not United Nations resolutions? Why isn't Canada saying let's have some tough resolutions on North Korea?

Those are my three questions.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Mr. Minister, there are three direct questions.

Mr. Bill Graham: I got four, of which six were hypothetical. Anyway, I don't know where we're going to go with this, but let's give it a try.

On the issue of material breach, colleagues, let's be clear. Where some people are going to say there's material breach, some are not. Is that where the argument is? Resolution 1441 says that Iraq is already in material breach of its obligations vis-à-vis the international community. It says that; that's article 1.

Article 4 provides, as I said in my introductory remarks, that Iraq is obliged to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution, and if it does not, that shall constitute a material breach. Dr. Blix came pretty close to saying that last time, didn't he? He said “I'm not getting the cooperation substantively. I'm getting procedural cooperation, but I'm not getting the substantial cooperation required by Resolution 1441.” Colin Powell made a persuasive case yesterday that not only is Saddam Hussein not complying, but as you say, use of circumstantial evidence....

If we come back to 1441, I think 1441 was drafted recognizing that to make a case against Saddam Hussein in a vast country where you could hide all sorts of really horrible things was going to be very difficult. Therefore, a stipulation was made for Saddam Hussein to satisfy the requirements of 1441 by doing what South Africa did when it got rid of its nuclear weapons. They said, “Come on in, you're welcome; here's what we're doing, please look; here's where we are”--full cooperation. But Dr. Blix has told us they're not getting that full cooperation. However, I do think we have to wait until we hear what he says on the 14th as to whether that attitude has changed or not before any subsequent steps are going to be taken.

If you're going to argue whether there is or is not material breach, the question is does that in your mind automatically trigger something else? That's your question to me. I don't think it automatically triggers it, but I think what it does is it tells the world, if Dr. Blix comes back and says that Saddam Hussein has no intention of cooperating, that the intermediate steps that would be required would be more inspections, etc., where those inspections go. That's why I don't wish to speculate, because I don't know what Dr. Blix is going to say to us, why we would say, well, what if this and what if this? I can't examine all those hypotheticals with you. I'm not like a computer playing chess.

I totally agree with you that North Korea represents a very serious problem. I think the war on terrorism represents a problem. I discussed this with several of our colleagues in Congress when I was in Washington. They said to me they're worried about being distracted from the war on terrorism by the Iraq situation and distracted from the North Korea situation.

I spoke to Maurice Strong after his trip. He, the Secretary General, and others are working together on an attempt to bridge the situation there. The United States has made a statement saying it has no intention of attacking North Korea, which should go a long way to allaying their fears. North Korea has said they have no intention of developing a nuclear weapon at this time.

There is a strategy out there in the world community, whether it's a four-plus-two meeting or something at the UN, to bridge these two positions to enable us to get out of a very dangerous situation. There is action there, there is activity. It's not getting the headlines Iraq is, but there is activity and we're engaged in it.

¿ (0940)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Harvard.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood —St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Graham, I must say that after listening to you and others over the last few days, I'm very pessimistic. I don't think war can be averted. The Americans have about 150,000 troops near or on the Iraqi border, and you can coop them up for only so long.

But more substantively, I don't think we can avoid war the way things are shaping up because Saddam Hussein either won't or can't comply with 1441. I say he won't because he has something to conceal or he can't because whatever he does, he will not be believed. He has such a bad reputation that he doesn't have a shred of credibility. We may be in a situation where we're just caught; he either can't or won't.

On the question of proportionality, Mr. Minister, I think we're in a situation where it's either all or nothing. The world community is guilty of not having something moderate, something in-between, that is, between what we have now and all-out war. It's very unfortunate that we don't consider more seriously this question of proportionality.

My last question, Mr. Minister, really has to do, if my pessimism is borne out and if war happens, with who's going to be there to pick up the pieces when it's all over, whether it lasts two days or two months. Right now in Canada we're preoccupied with a possible military involvement of one kind or another, but perhaps, Mr. Minister, Canada should be considering taking up the task of dealing with the humanitarian catastrophe should the war happen. You can be sure that with the kind of technology the Americans have, this is not going to be some kind of bloodless war. It might be more or less bloodless for the Americans, but it won't be for the Iraqi people.

Those are my comments.

[Translation]

The Chair: Quickly please, Mr. Graham.

[English]

Mr. Bill Graham: Well, I wouldn't go so far as to completely share your pessimism, but to be realistic, as I put it earlier, I would say that the ball is in Iraq's court now. Now, you say “won't” or “can't”. I think Dr. Blix is doing a really good job and a very credible job, and I think Saddam Hussein can satisfy the inspectors. It will require a total change in their behaviour patterns to date, but that's what 1441 requires.

We'll see what Dr. Blix says about that, and that is the proportionality issue, because ultimately, if the inspectors conclude that they're not getting cooperation from Iraq, then one has to consider the possibility I raised with Madame Lalonde. That is, they have weapons of mass destruction and will use them, and that's why we've come to where we are.

I totally agree with you on the humanitarian issue. I'm discussing that with my colleague, Ms. Whelan, and there's an international conference that should shortly take place. We have to recognize that. And I believe our American colleagues are having a vigorous debate inside the United States as to what the nature of their engagement is. Will it be just a military one, or will it be a long-term engagement? That's something they haven't decided.

I totally agree with you about the seriousness of the long-term consequences of this conflict in terms of the people of Iraq, who live in very fragile conditions. They don't have the resources they had in 1990. They're very fragile. This is why we've been always very careful to argue strongly that war has to be the very last resort because of both the long-term consequences in terms of the political stability of the region and also in terms of the terrible present condition the people of Iraq live in.

¿ (0945)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. McDonough.

[English]

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the minister for appearing before the foreign affairs committee today.

In your opening comments, Mr. Minister, you stated that Canada has been a strong, consistent voice in the Iraqi-U.S. tensions that continue to mount. I just have to say that I think that is what Canadians want Canada to be. But I also say, and I say this with great regret, that Canada's voice has actually been the opposite. I think it's been inconsistent, it's often erratic, and in fact it's quite often outright contradictory.

I don't know whether this is appropriate. I'm a new member of this committee, but we just heard from the previous speaker a whole sort of display of angst and the notion that war is inevitable and that you can't do anything anyway.

I think the line of questions from the former defence minister was dead on with the kinds of questions Canadians want answers to--if I may say that, as a former leader. For your answer to be that these are hypothetical questions just demonstrates how spineless and lacking in any clear position this government is. Surely the question about whether a finding of material breach automatically leads to war is not a hypothetical question.

I think the question that needs to be repeated and answered is what are those steps, what are those measures Canada is advocating with a loud, clear voice to anybody and everybody who will listen about what can be done and must be done? Let me be even more specific. It's quite clear that the position taken by the U.S. is that time is running out, meaning, they're going to launch a war if something doesn't change here to their liking. Instead of taking a strong position on that, Canada is basically saying let's wait and see.

Meanwhile, there are countries, France foremost among them, that have said we need to step up the inspection process; we need to make it more robust, and we need to recognize that in order for it to continue to work, more resources are needed. Has Canada spoken specifically and clearly on that issue?

The second question that was treated as totally hypothetical was what if Blix says that more time is needed and the U.S. says they're going to go ahead and bomb the hell out of Baghdad? It's not a hypothetical question to ask. Does Canada have a position on that situation, on that scenario? I think for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister of our country not to address that question resolutely and clearly is to abandon the desire of Canadians for our country to be a voice for peace--and not just a voice for peace but a force for peace in the international arena.

So I would repeat those two questions and ask specifically that they be addressed, because they're not hypothetical. They're very specific, concrete questions about whether this country has a foreign policy at all on the world's most pressing issue of the day.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

[English]

Mr. Bill Graham: One thing we can both agree on, we're both consistent. I would have been enormously surprised, Ms. McDonough, if you had said to me, “I agree the Canadian government's position has been consistent”, because after all, the opposition is never going to admit there's consistency there.

¿ (0950)

Ms. Alexa McDonough: That's one way to deflect it.

Mr. Bill Graham: If you start from that premise.... What we have been saying, what the Prime Minister has been saying, is what can be done? Create a system in the United Nations that is credible and enforceable. Look at Resolution 1441, which lays out the road map. We strongly supported that. We supported both the United States and the creation of this system, which is there and is working. It may, in the end, not avoid the need to disarm Saddam Hussein by force, but it has created a credible system that clearly indicates that every measure possible is being taken to avoid that terrible course of action.

Dr. Blix has created great credibility around that. We have supported Dr. Blix in his work. We've supported him with Canadians on his team. I talked with him personally just the other day, asked if we could be of more help, asked what he would need.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Is Canada fighting for more resources and offering to contribute those resources?

Mr. Bill Graham: We've offered. I've spoken with Dr. Blix and said “If you need something from us, if we can be more helpful to you, we will provide you with what you have asked for”. He said they were fine with what they had at the moment, but they'd certainly have no hesitation in getting back to us. We've been very upfront with Dr. Blix.

I personally believe he's doing a remarkable job. I think he's giving credibility to the system. What must be done is what must be done--for the sake of governance in the world, for the sake of the UN, for the sake of peace, for the sake of stability--to create a system that is not a unilateral action by one state. Rather, we'd work within the system we've created. That's why we want to continue working there and ultimately create as much unity as possible in the Security Council.

We're not on the Security Council. It doesn't mean we don't talk to our Security Council colleagues. The Prime Minister has spoken with the President of France, with the President of the United States, with Mr. Schroeder. I speak to my counterparts. We are urging that they remain unified in their solution to this problem, because we believe that too is a principle that's very important for us.

That's not so easy to articulate or explain. Are you for or against a war? That's a nice, easy question. The problem is how to deal with these matters in a responsible way that creates a global system of governance that is going to help us in the future. That's what we're working on. That's where we have been consistent.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Casey.

[English]

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Thank you very much.

It's good to have you here, Mr. Minister.

I think I detected some contradictions in your opening remarks, if I caught them right. You said full diplomatic effort should be made and war should be a last resort. You also said, if I got it right, that Parliament plays an important role in the Iraq issue. Then you went on to say--in kind of a pre-emptive strike on the motion that I'm going to table here in a minute, to bring in officials from the U.S. and Iraq--that the committee shouldn't hear from Iraq.

I don't understand how you can say Parliament has an important role if we're not going to have a vote in Parliament on the issue and if this parliamentary committee cannot hear from the participants in this issue. What is the important role that you see for Parliament if we're muzzled, we can't hear from the people involved, and we can't even vote on it?

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

[English]

Mr. Bill Graham: We're going to move from here to the House, where there'll be a debate on the opposition motion that there should be a vote, as I understand it, or that there should be a motion subsequent to the sending of troops. That's a motion we're going to be considering in the House. We'll debate it, and the government will come to a decision. We'll all be deciding how we're going to vote on that resolution come next week. I imagine the vote will be delayed into next week. To say we're not engaged in that.... You and I know we are.

On Iraqi officials coming before the committee, the fact that I'm hesitant.... I'm not telling the committee what to do. I made it very clear that the committee is master of its own fate, but....

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Minister, for your information, after you leave here this morning, we will be debating the notice of motion tabled by Mr. Casey.

[English]

We're going to discuss this motion after the one they have this morning.

Mr. Bill Graham: Perhaps I could be allowed just to explain the position I took. By my taking that position, I think Parliament has to be engaged, but I would not urge Parliament to do something that I believe is irresponsible in respect of the international situation we currently have.

The present situation is one where pressure is being kept on Saddam Hussein to conform. We know from past practice, you know and I know and everybody else knows, that Saddam Hussein's behaviour in the past is such that he's a master at being able to slide out of a tight corner and work his way around with deception. So let's not be naive about this, but for heaven's sake, let's not create an impression in Baghdad that if they could turn up at every parliamentary committee around the world, in every Parliament, maybe they could change people's opinions so that they wouldn't have to conform to Resolution 1441.

We have a process in place. Let's let Dr. Blix do this job for us. We've mandated the Security Council to do this; we've mandated a strong process in Dr. Blix. Let's let them do the job and keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

That's why I would urge you, before you decide one way or another on this, to take this into consideration. You may choose to reject it as a parliamentarian, and that's your right, but that's my position, and I would urge you, my colleagues, to consider that respectfully as the position that would be wise to take in these particular circumstances.

¿ (0955)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

[English]

Mr. Casey, you have one short question, please.

Mr. Bill Casey: I just want to point out that I didn't bring the issue up. The minister brought it up in his opening remarks about the motion.

I don't understand how Canada changed its philosophy. I know, Mr. Minister, you are a thoughtful, caring, compassionate person, but here we are, talking about Canadians bombing a people, not Saddam Hussein, who we all agree is an outrageous evil dictator. But the war will be against the people of Iraq, and it will be Canadians perhaps bombing a people in another country, yet we won't allow those people to come and talk to us.

So when did Canada change its position--we will bomb people but we won't talk to them? This is so fundamentally un-Canadian that I don't understand it. I really don't understand why you would oppose us hearing from a people who have not attacked Canada, they've not hurt any Canadians, but we may be involved in a military action against them that will result in thousands and thousands of men, women, and children being killed, but we won't hear from them.

I really don't understand how Canada can say that, how we can say that. It's okay to say the United Nations is doing their job, but this is Canada, Canadians, and people, other people.

Take Iraq out of the equation. How could Canada ever consider bombing a people and not allowing them to talk to us first? I don't understand that.

[Translation]

The Chair: Please respond quickly, Mr. Graham.

[English]

Mr. Bill Graham: Let me give my answer. To say that Iraq doesn't have an opportunity for a voice is not true. Iraq's representative spoke at the United Nations yesterday. Dr. Blix will be going to Baghdad and will give the Iraqis and the Iraqi regime the fullest of opportunities to cooperate with them and discuss that with them.

So what I say is that we have given an opportunity for Iraq to deal with these issues, but the channel we've chosen, and the effective channel, I believe, at the moment, which we should continue to support as our diplomatic effort, is the channel through Dr. Blix and the UN system. That is the best channel, in my view, as to where we will get the best success out of this--success, hopefully, to enable us to disarm Saddam Hussein in accordance with Resolution 1441 without recourse to the use of force, because I totally agree with your analysis about how terrible the consequences of that would be, and we've constantly said that.

So I totally agree; it must absolutely be the last resort. But I also agree that this is a dangerous situation, and that's why, in dangerous situations, you choose a course of conduct and an instrument to achieve it, and you back up that instrument and work with it. You don't suddenly say now we're going to do this, we're going to do that, because I think you create a situation in the diplomatic world, in the world, where you're sending out conflicting messages.

We don't have a conflicting message. We have a message, which is that we support Resolution 1441 and we support Dr. Blix. That has been our message, and I urge Madam McDonough to recognize that it has been consistent.

Mr. Bill Casey: I have one last question.

The Chair: No, you get 30 seconds to ask your question, and I'll ask Mrs. Redman to ask a 30-second question also, and then it will be over.

Mr. Casey, a 30-second question.

Mr. Bill Casey: I would feel more comfortable with your answer about our participation and your refusal to endorse the committee having Iraqi officials if you would say that Canada will absolutely comply with Dr. Blix. If Dr. Blix comes back on February 15 and says he needs another month or 60 days, if Canada would fight for that and absolutely insist on it and not allow any other path of action, then I'd feel more comfortable.

You're asking us to follow the UN, but it's not clear that you are going to support Hans Blix and the UN.

Mr. Bill Graham: I think I made it clear. Again, going back to what we've created here in terms of an international response, to make the international response credible, we have to stay within the framework we've created.

It's the Security Council that's going to hear Dr. Blix. It's going to be the Security Council that determines the appropriate action to take in light of Dr. Blix's testimony. That's what we've been consistent on. That's where we're going to be. That's where I think we will be on February 14.

If Dr. Blix comes back and asks for more time, it will be up to the Security Council to weigh that in the light of all circumstances. We'll be there urging that we do the best we possibly can within the framework to guarantee that we get out of this without using force.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Ms. Redman.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to ask us all to move past the topic at hand to at least look at the possible war in Iraq through a different lens. Canada has been consistently supportive of multilateralism. I hear some frustration and angst as to whether or not we're going to adhere to this process or have frustration with the process.

I'm wondering, Minister, if you can move us past this current situation, and contemplate a life without the kinds of multilateral issues and strategy that we have with the United Nations. What would that kind of world look like?

À (1000)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

[English]

Mr. Bill Graham: I'm not going to be able to do that in 30 seconds.

The Chair: The question is 30 seconds.

Mr. Bill Graham: I think your question, Madam Redman, clearly points to the undergirding principle of what we've sought to achieve throughout our policy. It is to enhance the international multilateral institutions by what is taking place with respect to Iraq, rather than enfeeble or weaken them. Ultimately, if we weaken them, we will lack the tools to deal with future conflicts or future problems of this nature.

I believe that we live in an integrated world that is far more interdependent, where there are huge problems that are not only war and peace. There are also poverty, the environment, and others, which require multilateral institutions to be able to address them effectively.

I strongly believe that the United States recognizes that as well. It may be the most powerful country in the world, but it can't solve all the problems by itself. It needs allies. It needs cooperation. It needs a structure. This is what this is mostly about.

It may be one of the frustrating things for the Canadian public, and for others and myself at the moment, that you don't get clear answers to these clear questions. The clearest answer is that we have to make sure we have a system in place that is addressing them and that it is a credible system.

I seriously believe, colleagues, that we've managed to achieve that at the moment. We will continue on that path. This is the way, in the end, we'll come out of this as best we can and that will guarantee we have a system in place for future situations that, regrettably enough, we know will be there.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

[English]

Thank you very much for taking the time to come and visit us today with your heavy schedule. It's very interesting. We hope to see you very soon in this committee.

We're going to come back in about five minutes. We're going to recess for five minutes.

Thank you.

À (1002)

À (1009)

The Chair: Pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), we are considering a letter dated Wednesday, December 11, 2002, signed by four members, requesting the convening of a meeting to discuss a motion on the situation of Iraq. After that we'll deal with another motion and then the future business of the committee.

The first motion reads:

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), we, the undersigned, request that a meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be called to discuss the motion submitted to you on Monday, December 9, 2002 regarding the possibility of inviting Senior Government Officials from Iraq and the United States, to testify at separate meetings of the Standing Committee and discuss the details of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441.

Time is of the essence regarding these discussions, considering that Canada's military may be engaged in a military conflict in Iraq before the House of Commons Committees return in the new year to scheduled meetings.

Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter.

It is signed by Messrs. Martin, Robinson, Assadourian, and Casey.

Mr. Casey.

À (1010)

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you very much.

I wrote this letter thinking there was going to be a meeting of this committee on December 11, prior to Christmas, but the committee did not meet on that day. The meeting was cancelled. I forget the reason.

All this letter does is ask that there be a meeting to consider the motion. Now that there is a meeting and we're talking about Iraq, perhaps we could just go ahead and deal with the motion. Can we do that?

The Chair: Fine.

Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In addressing the motion, I would say that the government has been very supportive, as ever, of the role of this committee and our role as parliamentarians as we engage in a study of the situation of Iraq. This is the second time the minister has come to speak to the committee and to show the level of importance he assigns to the work we do, particularly on this critical issue.

In my opinion, it is not the time to invite senior Iraqi officials here and to allow a public relations campaign to go on the road. It is instead time for them to be focusing their energy on their inspection work, and indeed it is their last chance to do so.

I would convey my view to the committee, Mr. Chair, that the Iraqi government has had ample time to make their arguments. They have made full use of multilateral forums, such as the United Nations, to make their views known. Whenever they do pronounce, of course it's quoted by the international press.

We've all heard the Iraqis claim that they've disarmed, and their declaration back on December 8, you'll recall, was to have provided evidence to support this statement. We have heard their side of the story. We can recall that these same Iraqi officials told the world in the 1990s that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, only to have evidence provided by the inspectors that proves the contrary.

What more can the Iraqi officials tell us? If they have anything to say to Canadians and to the world, they should be saying it at the United Nations or to the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. They should be explaining the gaps in their most recent weapons declaration, which these very inspectors have said is inadequate. That's the focus, and that's where their attention should be.

In my view, the appearance of high-level Iraqi officials here would only distract from the work that is being done by the inspectors. Indeed, Mr. Casey, I would say that such an invitation, while well intentioned, may send the wrong signal to Iraq about its need to comply with the international obligations. It could serve to undermine the United Nations, which we very ardently are supporting, as was expressed by the minister this morning.

Iraq has to understand the gravity of this situation, and that's where their focus should be. Should parliamentary foreign affairs committees throughout the world provide them with forums for continuous protestations, which have been shown largely not to be founded on fact? We do not further the object, which is indeed peace, to make them understand that this is their last chance. This is the time to be getting on with their work.

So I really would be looking to the committee, on both sides, to see what I believe is the rationale behind my views.

Thank you.

À (1015)

[Translation]

The Chair: Very quickly please, Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I can appreciate Ms. Carroll's arguments, but maybe if we were to invite an Iraqi official to appear before the committee, this would, on the contrary, give us an opportunity to ask why Iraq is not actively taking part in the inspection process. They have allowed the inspections to go forward, which is already an improvement over the past, but they have not actively participated in the process, according to Dr. Blix. That would counter your argument, but it would also allow us to add our voice to the debate. As for the advisability of hearing from Iraqi officials, I would remind you that Great Britain decided on this course of action. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Now we have a motion that the debate be adjourned. We will call the motion.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: I just haven't spoken to the motion yet. I'd like to have the opportunity. I spoke to the motion to call the motion, but not to the motion, and all of a sudden we went to—

The Chair: Mr. Casey, you are right. Then we're going to adjourn and vote. Thank you.

Do you have a question, Mr. Obhrai?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: May I ask, who moved the motion to adjourn?

An hon. member: Mr. Obhrai.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you. I didn't see that.

The Chair: Deepak.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): I put a motion that the debate be adjourned now and that we put the question.

The Chair: You put the motion that the debate be adjourned. Fine, now we can put the question. All in favour of the motion please signify.

Mr. Keith Martin: Is it that the debate be adjourned, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: First I call the question that the debate be adjourned. Are we agreed?

The Clerk of the Committee: No. There's only one, Mr. Chairman: Mr. Obhrai.

The Chair: That means we're going to keep going with the debate, except for Mr. Casey. I just called the question that the debate be adjourned, and all in favour that the debate be adjourned so signify, and then we call the question after.

An hon. member: I would like to hear from Mr. Casey.

The Chair: You want to hear from Mr. Casey?

The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, there's a motion on the floor to adjourn the debate.

The Chair: For edification, Mr. Obhrai said he would like to withdraw his motion. Do we have unanimous consent that Mr. Obhrai withdraw his motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Casey.

À (1020)

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you very much.

I'd like to clarify this, too. I'm not here advocating in support of Iraq, which I think the minister thinks I'm doing. I want to bring the Iraqi officials here to ask them about the anthrax we've heard about. Where is it? What did they do with it? What about the human rights abuses we hear about so often and so much? What about the genocide? What about the attacks on their own people, the Kurds? I want to ask them about those things.

The minister suggested that maybe their presentation would convince people to take their side, but maybe the opposite would happen. Maybe their presentation would be the opposite. But if they do go on the record at our Canadian parliamentary committee and make statements that are proven false later on, then I'm going to feel a lot more comfortable about Canadians attacking Iraq. That's what this is about: it's about hearing not only from the officials from Iraq, but officials from the United States as well.

That's my motion, and I hope you'll support it. I think it's along the lines of Canadian tradition and the history of diplomacy. The minister says we have to do everything in diplomacy. Well, we're not, if we don't do things like this.

The Chair: Thank you. Fine.

I have Monsieur Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): I'd like to say something in the next 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman. From a strategic standpoint, it's difficult to support this motion, because we are presently in the final stages of a UN-initiated process. Imagine for a moment what would happen if all member nations of the multilateral coalition were to decide, one after the other, to hear from Iraqi officials. As I see it, the inspection team has been given the mandate to meet with all Iraqi officials and for us to meet with them under the present circumstances would be totally inappropriate. We are not in the midst of a ten-year process. We're in the final few weeks. If every country were to invite Iraqi officials to appear, how would that make us look?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harvey. Would anyone care to comment further? If not,

[English]

I'm going to call the question.

Madam McDonough.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Chair, I've listened carefully to the arguments pro and con, and I certainly think we have to take seriously the concerns the foreign affairs minister has raised about how this could be misinterpreted. Having said that, I have to say, at the risk of repeating myself, I think there's been so much inconsistency and outright contradiction about where Canada really does stand on these fundamental questions that we have a responsibility as parliamentarians, as the foreign affairs committee, to fully inform ourselves to the maximum possible extent and, if nothing else, try to seek out answers to the very important questions that have been asked. We have to ask ourselves, is there, between the finding the material breach and the declaration of war and an attack on Iraq, a series of measures that could in fact be pursued to avert war and achieve the objective of disarming Saddam Hussein?

I personally think, in consideration of what I think is the real priority here, which is to disarm and to prevent war, we ought to reach out in all directions to better inform ourselves and try to come up with some answers to those questions. I'll be supporting the motion for that reason.

The Chair: Merci, Ms. McDonough.

(Motion negatived: nays 11; yeas 5)

Mr. Art Eggleton: I'll send you a videotape. It's all on the record.

The Chair: We'll go now to the second motion, the motion from Ms. McDonough, that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade call upon the Government of Canada to allow a vote in the House of Commons on the issue of Canada's participation in any proposed military attack on Iraq.

Ms. McDonough.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Chair, let me just briefly clarify, in case there are any questions about this, that when my predecessor on this committee, Svend Robinson, submitted this motion he was in fact the full member of the foreign affairs committee. That transition has now officially taken place on the record, so I've resubmitted the motion that is before us.

It is very straightforward. We heard this morning again the foreign affairs minister saying that the role of parliamentarians is important. Overwhelmingly, I think what we have been hearing from our constituents and from Canadians generally is that they want Parliament to play a role and to have their elected members have a vote on this very important question. So I would urge support of this motion. It doesn't in any way divide members of this committee around where we stand on specific issues, but would be I think an important signal to Canadians that we stand together on the question of parliamentarians having an opportunity to vote.

À (1025)

The Chair: Thank you.

Now Mrs. Carroll, and then Mr. Obhrai, and then Mr. Eggleton.

Mrs. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.

I appreciate Ms. McDonough's comments. But what I think we need to consider is that we will be beginning, Mr. Chair, consideration of a motion in the House today, which to a certain extent makes consideration of this vote somewhat redundant, to the extent that the opposition motion is going to allow just what you described but with a much larger venue for parliamentarians to input the question of the role of Parliament in voting at certain stages in a potential conflict such as that. And more, I think it really presupposes their positions before they've had a chance to articulate them in the debate in the House today. So I really find it to be somewhat redundant.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I echo the same sentiments that Aileen has just said, the parliamentary secretary. The Canadian Alliance has put a motion in the House today, which is exactly meeting the same condition.

I agree with Alexa, and the others who have signed the letter, on the intent of this motion, that there be a debate in Parliament. But now that this has taken place, that the Alliance has put forward a motion, this requirement has already been met. So I think this motion has become redundant.

So maybe I will put forward a motion to adjourn the debate, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Now, because I have a motion to adjourn the debate, I need to ask the members if they agree to adjourn the debate. If it is agreed to, we're going to stop the debate now, but it can be brought back here. If we defeat it we're going to keep moving with the debate and have the question after.

We have a motion from Mr. Obhrai to adjourn the debate.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: We keep going with the debate.

I have Mr. Eggleton.

Mr. Art Eggleton: I was going to get into the substance of the matter, but I don't know whether I should do that in view of the fact that this is in the House. But if you're going to proceed on the matter, then--

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I have a point of order.

I did not understand, Mr. Patry, what you were saying. You're saying that the motion from Mr. Obhrai is to defer this to another day, in effect. Is that not right?

The Chair: I'll ask the clerk to explain it properly.

What I just said, Ms. Carroll, is that if it's adjourned, it means that we stop the debate right now on this motion, and it could be--it doesn't mean it will be--brought up at another meeting of this committee. It's left to the person who brought it.

Mr. Art Eggleton: It's left to the person....

The Chair: We're going to call back the question. There was a motion from Mr. Obhrai asking to adjourn the debate. That's the question.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4).

The Chair: The motion is carried and the debate stops here.

Now we go to future business of the committee.

Madame Lalonde, on a point of order.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, as a rule, we work very well together, and I say this to the new committee members whom I'd also like to welcome. To vote a second time because Liberal colleagues failed to understand the meaning of the vote taken seems quite unparliamentary to me. I think they should fall in step. Perhaps they could take a different stand than the one they were instructed to take, for the sake of seeing the committee run smoothly. And, in keeping with your tradition of non-partisanship, I would hope to see things continue to go smoothly.

À (1030)

The Chair: Fine. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Bill Casey: On that point of order.

The Chair: On a point of order from Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: The member who moved the motion obviously was called out just for a second. I think she had to leave. I don't know if we could get unanimous consent to let her come back and vote. She was called away. Somebody came in and called her out.

The Chair: No, you cannot vote in absentia in committee.

Mr. Bill Casey: No, but could we have unanimous consent to just hold the vote when she comes back?

The Chair: No. We decided that in the standing committee, Mr. Casey, when the motion is brought up in the beginning. We decided to bring this up in the beginning to get a quorum. We have a quorum. It's over now. I'm sorry.

We have two other motions.

I need a motion requiring that the chair be authorized to approve payment for a lunch offered by the committee on February 4, 2003, to a delegation of Brazilian parliamentarians. It was done. I only want to be sure that I'm not going to pay the bill.

An hon. member: So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: I have another one, but not for money, for the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. It's for information pursuant to the order of October 21, 2002, concerning the creation and membership of a subcommittee. Mr. Calder replaced Mr. O'Brien as a Liberal member. This is only for information on the subcommittee. We don't need a vote on this.

Now we go to future business. That's the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. Your subcommittee met on Tuesday, February 4, 2003, and agreed to report that, further to the order of October 28, 2002, the committee continue to monitor the Iraq issue, and that, as required by circumstances, the chair from time to time organize hearings to which the Minister of Foreign Affairs and appropriate officials and concerned non-governmental organizations and individuals be invited to appear.

An hon. member: So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: It was agreed that the committee undertake a study of Canada's relations with the Moslem world.

Yes, please, Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: This motion indicates that there seems to be a problem with Canada's relations with the Moslem countries. I am trying to figure out what seems to be the intent of this motion. Do we actually have a problem with the Moslem world?

I don't think so. There is no defined reason as to why we're going ahead with this study. I think our relationship with the Moslem community and with the Moslem world does not seem to be at loggerheads, unless somebody tells me otherwise.

The Chair: Madam Lalonde, Mrs. Kraft Sloan, Mr. Martin, and then Mr. Casey.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, to reflect the work undertaken by the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure, I think the motion should read as follows:

That the Committee undertake a study of Canada's relations with the Muslim world, while participating in the foreign policy review.

We will decide here in Canada how to proceed. I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that a foreign policy review isn't mentioned anywhere else.

The Chair: Could you write that amendment down and then submit the text to me?

Ms. Kraft Sloan.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I apologize, I'm only subbing today. I haven't sat on this committee in recent history, nor have I sat on the subcommittee.

I do hear Mr. Obhrai's concerns, Mr. Chair. Perhaps there is wording that Mr. Obhrai would agree to. Perhaps it could be that the committee would undertake a study in order to “enhance” Canada's relations or “build” on Canada's relations with the Muslim world in light of the foreign policy reviews. There might be some wording that would provide Mr. Obhrai with greater comfort on that particular resolution coming from the subcommittee. Is that a possibility?

À (1035)

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you.

In the grand scheme of things that are affecting our country and indeed the world, I believe that using this committee's time to pursue a study on Canada's relations with the Muslim world would be a waste of time. I can certainly understand our need to improve relations, particularly in these sensitive times, but to use this committee in such an endeavour I think would not be a wise use of our time.

We should be pursuing a course of action to guide Canada and indeed the government to solutions for the prevention of deadly conflict and genocide, and developing a rules-based mechanism to address the humanitarian catastrophes that are taking place in the world right now, which quite frankly make the situation in Iraq pale in comparison. There are conflicts and humanitarian crises taking place right now where more people are dying every single day in one country than died on 9/11 in New York. There are conflicts taking place right now where millions of people are on the brink of death. That is something that is not even on the political radar screen of the international community, or Canada.

The world needs a country or a group of countries that are prepared to deal with these crises, because in my view, despite all the wonderful human rights instruments and organizations we have put together, we are as ill-equipped to deal with the prevention of genocide today as we were, tragically, in 1939. If we are going to at least learn from the lessons of the past, we must implement them in an effective rules-based mechanism for the prevention of the loss of innocent lives.

So I would at least hope that this committee would do a ground-breaking study on how Canada can lead the international community in the establishment of a rules-based mechanism to deal with the prevention of the deadly conflicts and humanitarian crises that are taking place today.

The Chair: Merci, Dr. Martin.

First of all, to Mr. Obhrai, just to let you know, that was not the intention. The theme was really Canada and the Muslim world. Secondly, it was adopted by Mr. Day. He was one of the ones most in favour of this study. I don't know what the Canadian Alliance's position is going to be, but Mr. Day, who sits on the steering committee, was very much in favour of this study.

Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: I would like to speak in favour of it, because I think there's a great interest in the Muslim world, not just on the part of parliamentarians, but among all Canadians, and I think there's a lack of knowledge of the culture of these different countries and religions. Obviously the Muslim countries are very much involved with foreign affairs, and I would look forward to the study a lot. I support it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Casey.

Mr. Eggleton.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It talks here about Canada's relations with the Muslim world, and I understand Mr. Obhrai's question about it in that context.

I think it would be helpful if you clarified your intent. My understanding is that it's to get a greater understanding about Islam in the context of September 11. Obviously there are people who are misusing and abusing Islam, and I don't think the people who carried out the terrorist acts represent the vast majority of adherents to the Islamic faith. Yet there is a myth, a misunderstanding about that matter.

People are concerned with what the Islamic faith says about different things. There have been numerous issues relevant to people who have been sentenced to death for a whole host of things that would never be considered for a death penalty in this country. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what this is all about--the extreme nature, the abused nature, of Islam versus what the vast majority adhere to.

So if that's your intent--to get a better understanding--that's a good thing. Whether it's appropriate for this committee or for the foreign affairs review.... I don't think it's appropriate for the foreign affairs review, but I think it's appropriate for Canadians to have a better understanding of Islam, to hear from some of the more moderate people involved, get a deeper understanding, particularly in the context within which we've seen it--September 11 and post-September 11.

Perhaps you could further expand your thoughts on that, and explain why it would be appropriate for this particular committee to do that kind of thing.

À (1040)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Eggleton.

I just want to let you know that the Library of Parliament has done research regarding this, and the context and rationale behind it were given to you yesterday or the day before.

I thank Mr. Eggleton for his remarks.

We'll go to Mrs. Lalonde, then Madam Kraft Sloan.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it's the wording that I find disturbing. Maybe we could say: “That the committee undertake a study of the Muslim world”, which would not imply that Canada has problems with the Muslim world.

On several occasions, members of the committee have discussed prevailing misconceptions about the Muslim world, how these can lead to problems and how a better understanding could help define foreign policy and the appropriate course of action. For this reason, and given the post-September 11 climate and the importance of not engaging in a war of civilizations, a war that some people, like Huntington, have predicted...The stakes are very high indeed. In order for us not to cave in to provocation -- because some extremist groups are guilty of provocation as well -- it's important to understand this world. That's why I'm in favour of undertaking a study of this kind, provided we do so in tandem with a foreign policy review. The committee can find some way of participating in this process without having to launch a series of consultations. It could simply review and reconsider some of the pertinent studies that have already been done on the subject.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Madame Lalonde.

Monsieur Obhrai, then Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I listened to my colleagues. I understand the underlying factor of this whole debate, which is the Muslim world, and in the aftermath of September 11 a lot of things have been said and misconceptions have taken place. In that context, I would like to ask if it is appropriate for this committee to do that.

Last year, in February, as an individual on this Hill, I held a seminar on women and Islam, which 400 people attended. I asked the women who were there to talk, and it was very well attended. So the responsibility of working out there, understanding Islam, taking away the misconceptions about Islam, is a big issue and has to be done in cooperation with Canadians of Muslim origin, as well. We have them there.

Now the question that bothers me is that we are leaving an impression that there is a problem of relationships, when there's not. There is a misunderstanding about this culture, but is it the responsibility of a foreign affairs committee to do that? Maybe it is the responsibility of the heritage committee. It is a heritage.... We have Canadians of Muslim origin who can come and do that. So the whole question on this issue is understanding Islam, but there are a lot of other ways of doing that, and I explained to you one of the ways we've done it.

This is the foreign affairs committee. Are we really dealing with relationships with foreign countries, foreign governments? Why are we bringing this here? Then we'll need to expand it so that it's not just for the Muslim world, but for the Buddhist world, the Hindu world, and all the others.

Is this the appropriate place? That's my concern and why I brought it forward.

À (1045)

The Chair: Fine, Monsieur Obhrai.

Next is Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In many respects, the work that members of Parliament do on their committees represents one of the very few opportunities they have to explore issues in depth, to call witnesses, and to do important studies.

There are many varieties of issues coming across our desks, and in many respects we are unable to look into things in great detail. I think doing a study in this regard would be a very important thing to do, because it would allow us to examine and have a better understanding of how some of these conflicts have arisen. In other ways, we can look at things we can build on, and where we have positive relationships, and how we can enhance those relationships.

If I may be so bold, Mr. Chair, I'm looking at page 7 of the paper prepared by the Library of Parliament. It says “Should Canada define its own distinctive foreign policy approach to the 'Muslim world,' and if so, what should that consist of...?” That's a decision for this committee to explore. But if I could remind the committee, there is a northern dimension to foreign policy. This committee undertook a great study of the circumpolar area a number of years ago, which was very influential in providing a northern dimension of foreign policy for our Canadian government. So this committee may accept or reject an approach that has a particular dimension within foreign policy in dealing with the Muslim world. In many respects, I would think it would enhance our relationships.

As someone who is merely visiting here, I see there are great opportunities in some respects for this committee to do this work.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Just to let you know, the Canada Centre for Foreign Policy Development published quite an important report in December 2002, A Way Forward for Canada and the Muslim World: Scenarios and Policy Options, by Mr. Suman Bhattacharyya.

I have Mr. Harvey first, then Mr. Harvard.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm new to this committee, and I just want to say that this motion looks interesting in that it would help our committee gain a little more insight into its activities and perhaps more influence over our government's actions. People come together when they face a common challenge. After the September 11 attacks, the Western World, if not the international community, came together and pledged to work to stem the terrorist tide. One way of achieving this aim is by working to better understand one other and I like the fact that the committee is open to this idea. As Mr. Martin said, waging a war against hunger will be the 21st century's biggest challenge. Millions of people in parts of the world face a certain death within the next few months. We need to redefine our borders in order to broaden our understanding of others and to guard against waging wars of civilizations, the cost of which would be horrific. We need to keep an open mind and to define our actions more clearly at the international level. Let me reiterate that the challenge of the 21st century will be to eradicate hunger. We cannot wage a war on this front indefinitely.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Harvard.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly want to concur with what Mr. Harvey said, as well as with Ms. Kraft Sloan.

To me, this is an inquiry to inform and educate ourselves. I think there are a lot of responsible, well-informed commentators around the world who point to a deepening gulf between the Muslim world and the rest of the world. As responsible parliamentarians, I think we should examine this phenomenon. I don't think this inquiry should lead us to tell the Muslim world anything, but it may help us bring about a better understanding and better relationship between them and us.

I also don't presuppose that the inquiry we would carry out would result in any recommendations with respect to our foreign policy vis-à-vis the Muslim world. We could possibly agree or decide that our foreign policy in that regard is working quite well. My guess is that wouldn't be the case. I'm sure that, as most parliamentarians, we do make recommendations.

The one thing I was a little puzzled about, if I heard him correctly, is Mr. Obhrai saying there was no problem but just a misunderstanding. Well, to me, a misunderstanding is a problem. This is not to make accusations or to make a judgment on the Muslim world, but there are things going on inside the Muslim world and there are things going on inside the entire planet. As responsible parliamentarians, we have an obligation to inform ourselves. I think this is money that can be very well spent.

À (1050)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harvard.

Mr. Eggleton.

[English]

Mr. Art Eggleton: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to support your recommendation for the study, coming out of the subcommittee. But I do appreciate the point Mr. Obhrai makes that maybe the heritage committee should be looking at this. If you looked at it entirely in the context of the Muslim world, one would have to bear in mind that we have Muslims in this country who are Canadian citizens. If you're looking at it in the religious and cultural context, then, yes, the heritage committee would seem to be the appropriate place to do the study. But I don't think that's what's being proposed here. Maybe the problem is in the wording; if there were other wording, it might better suit your intent.

It seems to me that what we need to look at is this whole question of the abuse of Islam, which we have seen on September 11 and in suicide bombings. We need to look at the application of fundamental Islamic law, because we frequently find ourselves in foreign affairs putting in appeals for somebody who is about to be stoned to death, or about something else under those laws. We have concerns about those kinds of things, as of course we have concerns about suicide terrorists who come from other countries.

So in that context, it is a foreign affairs matter, and it is quite appropriate to look at it in that context to try to dispel some of the myths. I think one of the big myths we have to dispel is that we're not talking about the vast majority of adherents of Islam; the vast majority are peaceful people.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Eggleton.

Now we're going to conclude.

This was just suggested by the steering committee as an exploratory study. The goal is to advance dialogue with the Muslim world. It's just a draft. If it's agreed, the clerk and the researcher will work on it.

Do we agree to pass this motion?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: With my amendment?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, I think so. We could add the amendment, and say “while participating in the foreign policy review”. I think that's fine. It could be both. It could be part of it, yes.

Madame McDonough.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Very briefly, I'm certainly in full agreement that we proceed to support this motion.

I think one of the things that perhaps would allay some of the concerns being expressed by Mr. Obhrai is perhaps to articulate more clearly that we're talking both about studying Canada's relations with our Canadian Muslim community and internationally, because—

The Chair: I fully agree on this.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: I think we know that since September 11 there have been grotesque distortions of Islam, grotesque misrepresentations, and Canadian members of the Islamic community are exhausted from the demands being placed on their lives to interpret and explain to Canadians, ourselves included, the background here. So I think we need to articulate that we're talking about both Canadian Muslims and Muslims in other parts of the world.

À (1055)

The Chair: I think it's fair like that.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We have about five minutes left. I have another question.

Is it agreed that the committee hold a hearing on February 13, 2003, concerning key food and agriculture policy issues in relation to development matters and that representatives of the Canadian Food Security Policy Group be called to appear?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Is it agreed that the committee host a working lunch for the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Macedonia on Tuesday, February 18, 2003?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Is it agreed that the request from Amnesty International for the committee to consider relations with China in view of human rights concerns be referred to the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Is it agreed that during the annual appearance of the Ambassador for Disarmament, pursuant to recommendation 2 of the committee's December 1998 report, Canada and the Nuclear Challenge: Reducing the Political Value of Nuclear Weapons for the Twenty-First Century, representatives of the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons be also invited to appear?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Is it agreed that the invitation of December 11--

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but things are moving along fairly quickly here.

In the course of its discussions, the sub-committee proposed a review of developments with respect to the Smart Borders issue. I had asked that we also add safe third countries to the list of topics for consideration and my request was approved.

The Chair: Fine then.

[English]

Is it agreed that the invitation of December 11, 2002, from the Auditor General for the committee to consider chapter 3 of the December 2002 report, Special Import Measures Act: Protecting Against Dumped or Subsidized Imports, be referred to the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Is it agreed that for motions requiring 24 hours' notice, pursuant to the order of October 21, 2002, the chair be authorized to defer consideration until 15 minutes prior to the adjournment time for the meeting, as indicated in the notice of meeting?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We have also the third one, which I forgot: that in relation to the committee report, Partners in North America: Advancing Canada's Relations with the United States and Mexico, the committee undertake to hold trilateral meetings with members of the foreign affairs committees of the United States and Mexican Congresses after the tabling of the government response, pursuant to Standing Order 109.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: For the second one, is it agreed that the committee hold a hearing on border issues with other concerned committees in the near future to review developments since the signature of the December 2001 smart border declaration, including the December 2002 safe third country agreement, with the minister responsible? So “including the December 2002 safe third country agreement” was added.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Now we have this one, which is not in front of you, but if you agree, may I have your authorization to schedule one or more hearings, as required, to examine the issues of concern regarding the situation in North Korea?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Now I have a final motion, that the Second Report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, as amended, be concurred in.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.