Transcription:
Mr. Chair, I thank my dear colleague for giving me the opportunity to participate in this evening’s incredibly important debate.
Since the morning of February 28, from coast to coast to coast, Canadians have been scared. Canadians are praying for peace, wondering if the world is unravelling even faster than before. We have wondered, since Putin invaded Ukraine four years ago, if the world is capable of pulling together for peace.
My goal tonight is to try to find some common threads, because what this must not be is purely a partisan debate. It is far too easy to point out that the Prime Minister made a mistake on February 28 in being too quick to issue a declaration that we supported the bombing. It is obvious now, and it should have been obvious that day to the Prime Minister, that this is a violation of international law. We must stand with international law.
However, we are Canadians, first and foremost. Around this room and through all parts of Canada, I am sure what we most want is for our country to do the right thing, and that might mean that we have to put partisanship to the side.
I think we can set aside partisan differences. The question we must debate is this: What can we do now?
We know the Minister of Foreign Affairs said clearly that we need to move to de-escalation. She is not alone in that. I want to quote the Secretary-General of the United Nations, at the emergency debates of the Security Council. Of course, we know that around the table of that Security Council are some of the prime actors in avoiding peace in this conflict.
Still, Secretary-General António Guterres said, “Military action carries the risk of igniting a chain of events that no one can control in the most volatile region of the world.” He said, “the world [needs] a way out now”, and that way is “de-escalation and an immediate cessation of hostilities.”
How can Canada help? Can we help?
We do need to stop saying there is no international law. There is such a thing as international law. It’s the United Nations Charter. It is critical that Canada continually defends the fact that there is a United Nations Charter. We are wrong when we decide it is difficult, awkward or embarrassing to point out when the United States violates the international rule of law by, for instance, seizing the President of Venezuela. It is hard to point these things out, but when we have a U.S. President who, right now, 60% of Canadians see as a threat, we really do need to insist on the United Nations Charter being observed and respected. Otherwise, who will stand up for us if someday we need to remind people that the United Nations Charter defends Canada’s sovereignty?
We need to defend the sovereignty of even those nations in which we want to see regime change as quickly as possible. No one will disagree, I do not think, that the Iranian regime is a despicable and brutal regime that oppresses, suppresses and kills its own people. However, that does not mean that the United States and Israel had any legal grounds to bomb Tehran. That was reckless and dangerous, and we will continue to see the consequences, maybe into generations.
We need to now seize the chance, somehow, against the odds, while we are still respected in the world, for Canada to play the kind of role we played long ago, but not that long ago. I am thinking of Hon. Lloyd Axworthy. He was our foreign minister from 1996 to 2000, and he played a key role in getting the landmine treaty. He is calling on the government to respect international law, to speak out and to ensure that we are on the right side of history.
For this, it means that those of us in this room tonight accept our responsibility, not just as partisans but as human beings on a planet in peril, and put aside the obvious fun of making political points and giving partisan jabs. There has not been a single person speaking tonight with whom I would not agree with most of what they said. Not every word, but most of what everybody has said in this room tonight is about how we protect all of the world from an escalating conflict whose ultimate consequences could be beyond the disaster that we dare not speak its name.
With that, I conclude.