Hon. John Manley

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question and not an easy one to answer.

Let me say there are principles that can coexist but are not mutually exclusive. One of the principles that is involved here is that we share a close degree of cooperation between Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and some other countries in terms of military cooperation. We are allies in NATO. The practice of having exchanges among officers is one that is well established. In this circumstance, while our troops are not there under the Canadian flag, clearly for certain principles which I have explained, some are there in fulfillment of exchange obligations.

They are involved in a conflict which we felt could have been resolved differently in the sense that a greater level of international consensus could have been achieved if more time had been allowed. We worked very hard at that. However, we share the ultimate objective of disarming the Saddam Hussein regime.

Therefore, the principle that they should fulfill their duties in accordance with their obligations to allied forces is a principle that can be respected at the same time. They do not necessarily become mutually exclusive principles.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Deputy Prime Minister. I appreciated and agreed with many of his comments.

I would like to know whether he will support the motion or not? He has mentioned the idea of tabling another motion today. He knows that will be out of order. We will be voting on the motion that is before the House as a business of supply. It is important for Canadians to know and they will eventually see in the vote whether the government will support these four simple but profound principles that are in the motion. I would like him to address that and that alone will set the debate for the day.

Hon. John Manley

Mr. Speaker, I outlined the foundation for a resolution which I would hope that both sides of the House could support. The hon. member will know that if his party refuses to adopt a motion that we can all support, it is still open to the government to table a motion at any time, which is what we would do.

It is my hope that at this time we could put aside the partisanship at least for a day and agree on a common motion that we would all be able to support.

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the Speaker to pay particular attention to Standing Order 81(2) which states:

On any day or days appointed for the consideration of any business under the provisions of this Standing Order [which is the business of supply], that order of business shall have precedence over all other government business in such sitting or sittings.

Any effort to supplant today's supply day motion with another motion would be out of order throughout the day. I encourage the government House leader and the Deputy Prime Minister to keep that in mind as we debate this important issue.

In his speech, the Deputy Prime Minister indicated, in so many words, that there would be the possibility of tabling another motion at some other point in time. He was not precise in saying that it would be today. Therefore, I am inviting the hon. member or his House leader to check with the government House leader as to what the intentions would be.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

Motions often contain several elements. The motion before us now is no exception. This motion contains exactly four elements, and as always, parties and members are confronted with the fact that they must balance the pros and cons. Obviously, there are elements of this motion that are very valid. However, other elements are less so, and some are not valid at all. Allow me to explain.

Let us look at the first part, the part dealing with apologies regarding comments made by colleagues, either in or outside the House. This has usually occurred outside the House. I think we have to establish the right balance between freedom of expression and responsibility. Of course, when one is a legislator, a member of Parliament, one has to be careful about what one says. However, our freedom of expression must not give us the right to go so far as to make comments that could jeopardize diplomatic or economic relations.

This is what happened as a result of comments made by certain colleagues from the Liberal party. These comments, in our opinion, were unjustified. In fact, the United States of America is geographically very close, it is much bigger than us and it is our main trading and diplomatic partner. Therefore we must be careful when a member of Parliament makes statements that I do not even care to repeat in the House. Everyone understands that this is unacceptable. If the motion asked that the House of Commons make an apology, I am sure that the Bloc Quebecois would support it.

As for the second element, that we reaffirm the United States to be our closest friend and ally, the Bloc Quebecois would also, obviously, agree with it. There is no question about that, since we are so intimately linked by our history.

Many years ago, I created what I call a triangle of excellence in my region with my city and American cities in the states of Vermont and New York. Each time I go to the State of New York, particularly Plattsburgh, I am reminded of the great battle of Plattsburgh, where the American navy sunk the British navy. I often joke that, had it not been for the American navy in 1812, they would probably all be Canadians today. They go on and on about this battle, and I often say that a quarter of a century earlier, in 1775, General Montgomery came down with American ships and was stuck for 49 days in my riding. I must tell Canadians listening to me today that, were it not for the strong resistance movement in the Saint-Jean region, we would probably all be Americans today. They do not find this very funny. But it is all between friends.

We must not think that the current dispute between Canada and the U.S. threatens this kind of exchange. I am continuing such exchanges. I met with Senators Clinton and Shumer, of New York state, and also with Senators Leahy and Jeffords, from Vermont. We are still able to talk to one another and get past our differences to discuss economic, cultural, social and other exchanges. But, such statements, obviously, do not help matters.

I think that more evidence of this was seen this morning. Ambassador Cellucci was reluctant to discuss the fact that Canada was not taking part in this war. I will come back to this point because, in my opinion, we are taking part. Ambassador Cellucci was saying that Washington had taken note of the very strong statements made about Washington. I think that it is terrible that this occurred. This fosters anti-Americanism and, on this point, the Bloc Quebecois wants to state loud and clear that we are not anti-American.

The second element, however, makes reference to friendship. We are friends and, as in any relationship between friends, this does not mean we always have to agree. It means we can tell the other that he has made a mistake. That is what the people of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois have been doing from the start. We think the President og the United States made a mistake. So now are we going to put them all into one category and call them a bunch of so-and-so's? We will not do that. We can retain our critical judgment and ask our friend to reconsider. That is, I think, what we have wanted to do from the start of the debate, and what we want to continue to do.

Now for the third element, which is problematical for us. I must remind hon. members that we believe UN resolution 1441 called for the disarmament of Iraq, peaceful disarmament. Chief inspector Hans Blix made several reports, and we saw some progress being made by the inspections.

In our opinion, resolution 1441 did not specify that military force ought to be resorted to. We have always had objections to this type of military intervention because of that belief. I would also remind hon. members that this resolution dealt with disarmament and not with a change of regime.

So why should we in the Bloc Quebecois change our attitude now? Why should we now say that, since the coalition forces are there, they might as well put an end to that regime? I must remind you that the Prime Minister has even stated in this House that this could not be done, that he was not in favour of it. We have said the same in several speeches: if we allow that, we will end up with military intervention in North Korea, Iran or Syria, because we do not like their regimes. I believe this needs to be settled at the UN. It is the ideal international forum for settling disputes and differences between nations; otherwise, we will end up with the law of the jungle.

The third element of this motion is very harsh. It states that we “hope that the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is successful in removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power”. This is very warlike wording. Not only do we not agree with the substance of it, but we do not agree, either, with the wording of this motion.

I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that, in principle, we are not directly engaged in this war. However, the hypocrisy of the Liberal government must be pointed out. A few weeks ago, in a grand statement, the minister told us that we would not take part in a military intervention in Iraq, yet we now have soldiers in Iraq who are taking part in the operation. They are not there to disarm the regime, but to destroy it. This needs to be made clear. A Canadian soldier in Iraq under the command of British or American forces is taking part in the American and British mission, which is to destroy the regime.

The government is not out of the woods with this attitude and this position. We believe, that since the beginning, we should have pulled out our troops, withdrawn our equipment, and this would have been consistent with the statement made by the Prime Minister to the effect that we would not be taking part in this war in Iraq. As long as we have soldiers there, be it 30 or 300, we are participating in the war in Iraq, and for us, this is unacceptable.

We also take issue with the fourth element of the motion. It refers to a coalition to reconstruct Iraq. Some of the great losers in this conflict, in addition to the people of Iraq, are international institutions such as the UN. The UN has been sidelined in all this. The inspection process, which was supported by most UN countries, was aborted. We were in the process of disarming the regime. It would have taken more time, but the United States and Great Britain started up the hostilities, which brought an end to the inspections.

I think that we should make some efforts. Canada should make the effort and say to its American and British friends, “Listen, we have to make the UN a respectable institution once more”. To do that, the international community, along with the UN, has to deal with the issue of reconstruction. One nation alone cannot accomplish the reconstruction, any more than it can impose a military government. The UN must be responsible.

In conclusion, I would say that Quebec has always been opposed to this war. Quebec believes firmly in multilateralism. The goal was to disarm Iraq peacefully and that did not succeed; the inspectors were making progress. Military intervention was not the solution. We would prefer that the reconstruction of Iraq take place under the aegis of the United Nations.

We have weighed the pros and cons, as I said before, and we have debated it at length, and the Bloc Quebecois, for all the reasons I have listed, will not vote in favour of the Canadian Alliance's motion.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, for his excellent speech. For the benefit of those who are listening, I would like to read the motion moved by the Canadian Alliance. It reads as follows:

That the House of Commons express its regret and apologize for offensive and inappropriate statements made against the United States of America by certain Members of this House; that it reaffirm the United States to be Canada's closest friend and ally and; hope that the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is successful in removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power; and that the House urge the Government of Canada to assist the coalition in the reconstruction of Iraq.

I would like to begin my comments by talking about what the motion does not contain. It makes no reference to the heart of the matter, which is whether or not international law is being complied with.

This type of conflict was supposed to have been solved following the terrible second world war by the establishment of the United Nation, in 1948. As such, it became illegal for a sovereign state to attack another sovereign state without the permission of this great assembly, known as the United Nations, which was technically represented by the Security Council.

Those, then, are the rules of civility that were set out to require that states no longer act arbitrarily, that they no longer act unilaterally and based on their own aggressive interests. That is the spirit of international law on this issue. And the depository of international law in this case is the United Nations.

What is worrisome here is that those who were asked to demonstrate the need for this aggression, as the Vatican has described it, were not at all able to do so. The Vatican stated that if a country took upon itself to intervene in this matter, based on its own authority and without the support of the UN, then it was an aggression and not a war. These words are important words. And neither Colin Powell, during his presentations, nor by Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, managed to demonstrate the need for, let alone the legitimacy of, this war. The inspectors, who were on site in Iraq, mandated by the UN to verify if Iraq had the capacity to use weapons of mass destruction, were even less able to demonstrate the need for or legitimacy of this war.

Up to now, all the inspections have showed that there was no cause for concern. Perhaps, with time, if the inspections had continued, weapons of mass destruction would have been found. However, none were nor have been yet—we must remember this—even during the current aggression against Iraq. Never did we hear about any weapons of mass destruction being found.

Since this war is not legitimate and the need has not been proven, there is a universal and international outcry. Millions of people have physically manifested their disapproval of this unilateral gesture. It is important to remember this, because institutions and international law are being ignored. Neither individuals nor sovereign states have the right to take the law into their own hands.

Obviously, on September 11, 2001, the Americans suffered a terrible blow. They are still suffering. Their national pride has taken a beating, but this does not justify—not for states nor for individuals—taking the law into their own hands. It is essential not to forget this.

As for the motion as presented by the Canadian Alliance, I too have reservations. I am glad that my hon. colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, said what he did about the offensive and inappropriate statements. In fact, the right of members to speak is protected, but this privilege must be used properly. However, it is also dangerous for a political party to point fingers and jeopardize freedom of expression. It becomes essential, in situations as sensitive as these, to respect the freedom of expression of the people's elected representatives. I hope that the Canadian right considered that before writing this.

As for the bonds of friendship between the United States of America, Canada and Quebec, these are obvious.

Quebec has four U.S. states as neighbours. Quebeckers feel great affection for the American people. Everyone knows how many Quebeckers have property in Florida, or visit there regularly. Our emotional and tourist connections with the entire eastern seaboard is well known, particularly Boston, Cape Cod, Myrtle Beach, Old Orchard and so on. How many of us are familiar with New York City, the victim of the terrible attack we are all familiar with? Some, myself included, have had the privilege of travelling to New Orleans, in Louisiana, a wonderful city with its Spanish-French flavour, Bourbon Street and all the rest.

There are historical connections as well as commercial ones, and the latter are of such importance that, as a result, to echo what my colleague from Saint-Jean has said, we are not going to end a friendship because we disagree with our friend.

In this connection, President Chirac had some marvellous words to say about the historic connection between France and the United States, which ought not to be threatened by France's attitude in advising its friend not to go down this dead-end path, in other words, that victory without risk brings triumph without glory. This is more or less what is happening and is, I think, the message old Europe wanted to pass to the Americans before any physical intervention in Iraq with its longtime friend, Great Britain.

I think, as far as friendship is concerned, there is no ambiguity on this concept. Disagreement does not put an end to friendship.

The third Alliance proposal is a very serious one. To quote:

—that the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is successful in removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power;

Giving support to such a proposal is tantamount to supporting anarchy. This must be realized. Resolution 1441 directly addressed the disarmament of Iraq, not a change of regime. In this connection, the Prime Minister was very quick to act in denouncing the slippage from one concept to the other.

If it is valid today for Iraq, why would it not be valid later for Iran or Syria? It is obvious that there are risks in this. In the same way, why not Korea against Japan or vice versa? Why not China against Taiwan? Why not India against Pakistan and vice versa? Why not the United States against Cuba or against Venezuela? When it is not what they want, will they change the regime?

This is too easy, and it is anarchy. We must stand firmly opposed. When the role of the United Nations is ignored, this is the kind of slippery slope that lies ahead.

Finally, the last proposal, that the House “urge the Government of Canada to assist the coalition in the reconstruction of Iraq”, takes us even farther down that slippery slope. On the day after the victory we know is coming, the coalition will maintain its leadership. Quasi-anarchy will be maintained even though the reconstruction of Iraq ought to be the responsibility of the international community, as represented internationally by the United Nations.

Therefore, we must insist—and this is urgent—that the reconstruction take place under the responsibility of the United Nations—that it be funded by the coalition—this is something I personally want to see—that it be well managed and that we avoid destabilizing the whole region—for that is the risk.

We know that the Muslim world is taking this quite bitterly. We know that Syria and Jordan are near the boiling point and Egypt is in a difficult situation. We are walking on eggshells and this is not the time to put on our heavy boots. We must approach this with diplomacy and ensure that those who are responsible for the task take their responsibilities seriously.

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate today. I think it is extremely important for all members of Parliament to continue to be very much engaged, not so much in the debate around the tragedy of the unilateral choice made by our closest neighbour, the United States, in rejecting the peaceful disarmament of Saddam Hussein that was underway, but in staying focused very much on where we are now and on how we can get to a better, more peaceful place in the world of tomorrow.

I have briefly reviewed the motion that has been placed before us by the official opposition, the Alliance Party. I have to say this from the outset. Whether deliberately or not, because I guess motives do not actually count and in fact there is a question about whether it is parliamentary to judge motives, I think it has to be said that the Alliance has certainly put on the floor for debate a motion that it has made absolutely impossible for most members of the House to support. I want to very briefly say why that is so in dealing with the four basic elements of the motion.

I am going to pass over the first very briefly. Actually I agree generally with the sentiment of that motion, which may surprise some people, but I think what the Alliance has sought to do is to condemn offensive and inappropriate statements that have been made against the United States by various members of the House.

I have no trouble associating myself with the sense of regret about that, because I think that if one did not give some really thoughtful consideration to how destructive and counterproductive this could be before this morning's foreign affairs committee meeting, one could certainly not come away from that excellent foreign affairs committee this morning without being mindful of some of the important considerations that need to enter into how we actually debate substantively an issue as fundamentally important as this.

Before the foreign affairs committee this morning there was a really excellent pair of presenters, if I could put it that way, Professor Kim Richard Nossal from Queen's University and Professor Pierre Martin from the University of Montreal, both of whom addressed this issue in terms of what is a very important foreign policy dialogue going on in the country today, and I commend the foreign affairs minister for this, around the question of how we can on the one hand as Canadians absolutely maintain and strengthen our commitment to multilateralism while at the same time managing the relationship with the superpower or hyper-power, the United States of America of today, that is our closest neighbour.

What we really came away from that foreign affairs committee thinking about, and I hope it is true of all members, is that in some respects it has been the vagueness, the contradictions, the lack of substance, really, in the government's addressing of the issue about the war in Iraq that has created an environment in which the focus has tended to be more on inflammatory statements made on what I think one would characterize in many cases as unhelpful and provocative anti-Americanism.

I think there is a lesson in that for all of us, but I hope the government is prepared to listen to the argument that was made very skilfully and persuasively this morning: that if the government had been clearer about its position on the very question of the launching of a military offensive in Iraq rather than sort of playing around the edges with, “We are in favour of delaying to a certain date but not beyond a certain date, if we could delay the date”, and never clearly setting out the substantive arguments for why Canada should not be participating in the war on Iraq, then I think we would have seen a display of leadership that would have been easier to stand behind. I think then we would have seen a follow-through such that, having said we were opposed to participating in a war on Iraq, we would actually ensure that we are living up to that position and not participating in the war on Iraq when in fact we are doing that. We have a government that is saying one thing and doing another.

Now I want to move to the more substantive parts of the motion, the first having to do with hoping “that the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is successful in removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power”. This goes to the heart of the single most unacceptable thing about the U.S. invoking a policy of regime change.

This is a very terrifying initiative that has been taken in a world where we thought we had made some substantial progress in creating the international architecture of the United Nations, in building up a body of international law and in establishing a charter of the United Nations, all of these to try to ensure that no country in the world feels free to engage in a pre-emptive strike against another country.

The concerns about this are obvious. If it is Iraq today, is it to be Saudi Arabia tomorrow? If the United States feels free to thumb its nose at the United Nations and launch a pre-emptive strike, then who tomorrow will feel free to launch a pre-emptive strike? Will it be North Korea? This is a really terrifying development in a world where we thought we had begun to make some real progress toward ensuring that the family of nations works together through the international body of the United Nations to deal with its principal objective, that is, to rid the world and future generations of the scourge of war.

The second substantive part of the resolution before us urges that the Government of Canada “assist the coalition in the reconstruction of Iraq”. This is also a very troublesome notion.

Had the official opposition, the Alliance, chosen to put forward a motion which urged that the Government of Canada participate and provide leadership in assisting with the reconstruction of Iraq and had it done so through the United Nations, then we would be first in line to say bravo. We would be the first in line to support that return to multilateralism, to support the return from this romp with chaos and hegemony to an orderly approach, to something that the world must rally to support, but must support through the United Nations.

It is not an accident that there is now a raging debate going on about how in the name of heaven we are to ensure that the United States, in its unilateralist mentality of the day, does not see its next step of world dominance being to reconstruct the supposedly liberated Iraq in its own image. This is a very great concern.

As the closest friends and neighbours of the United States, we have to urge, to coax and to persuade, to use every aspect of diplomacy available to us, to help the United States see that the world is poised and ready to contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq. This in fact is an appropriate role for Canada, having said no to the war in Iraq, to focus its attentions on. To state the obvious, if the Government of Canada were genuinely prepared to do what it said was its position for opposing the war, in other words, not to participate in the war, we would actually be saving millions, tens of millions, and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars, because one does not know any more what length of time this war is going to take. It certainly looks as though it is going to be longer than ever was imagined by the U.S. decision makers.

We could save hundreds of millions of dollars that could appropriately be directed to the reconstruction of Iraq, as it could be redirected to other critically important humanitarian needs in the world, including one that we have been speaking about in the Chamber, and we will continue to do so until the Canadian government does live up to its commitments, for example, to pay its proportionate share to the global fund to deal with the HIV-AIDS pandemic.

The issue is not whether Canada should play a role in the reconstruction of Iraq. Of course it should. What is fundamentally important is that we do so within the framework of multilateralism and the well-established body that exists through the United Nations to do that in the most effective, the most efficient and the most sensitive way.

I do not want to dwell on the fact that the Alliance--and perhaps I should not predict but we will see--appears as though it is more interested in introducing a motion that it makes impossible for us to support when it once again takes this totally unilateralist view and talks only about the coalition doing the reconstruction of Iraq.

I know that when one speaks in these terms, when one criticizes the decision of the Bush administration to plunge the United States and the world into this tragic war in Iraq, one is often accused of being anti-American. In the moments that remain to me I will quote a couple of American politicians who themselves, after I think a disappointing period of silence and complicity for many American politicians, have found their voices and appear to have found courage, and who are now speaking out, in response, I think, to a great deal of anti-war mobilization by large numbers of Americans.

I start with a Democratic congressman from Ohio by the name of Dennis Kucinich. Some will know that he has become an articulate voice, not just in opposing the U.S. launching the war but now in an increasing crescendo urging that the war be stopped and that it be stopped now. We are pleased to associate ourselves with that position.

At the absolute minimum, unless we are to turn our backs on a humanitarian tragedy of monumental proportions, there has to be a ceasefire, and a ceasefire now, in order to get the food aid, the humanitarian aid and the medical aid in to deal with the increasing numbers of casualties that are occurring and the widespread hunger that will lead to premature death, even among those who have not been directly injured in the hostilities and the violence.

Let me quote briefly from Dennis Kucinich, the U.S. congressman:

Stop the war now. As Baghdad will be encircled, this is the time to get the UN back in to inspect Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. Our troops should not have to be the ones who will find out....whether...[there are biological and chemical] weapons.

This of course goes to the very point of how tragic it is, of why it is so tragic that the U.S. chose to shut down, because that is what happened, the peaceful weapons inspection process that was taking place. Because of course what we have now is a situation where not only are the weapons inspections not taking place, but if there were any genuine belief in spite of the absence of any real evidence, if there were any genuine belief about biological and chemical weapons being present in Iraq, then would not the last thing on earth one would want be to engage in hostilities that would unleash those weapons?

Mr. Kucinich goes on to make the argument that before the sending of any troops into house to house combat in Baghdad, a city of five million people, surely we have to put a stop to this before we create the kind of casualties that are going to be involved but also before we put troops in a position that is so absolutely and horrifyingly unsafe, destroying both body and soul of all of those who end up locked into that war.

This brings me back to the question of Canada's complicity. I do not know how else to describe it. While the Prime Minister took the position officially, for which he had our congratulations and support, that Canada would not participate in the war, we now know that in fact Canadian troops are involved in that war. I think it is very hard for people to have confidence in the moral authority of the government or, frankly, in the truth telling of the government if it says that we will not participate and then, when challenged to address the evidence that was coming more and more to the fore, to then say that we were still not participating despite the evidence, to the point now where the government essentially is saying that it decided to have it both ways.

As a member of Parliament who proudly represents the riding of Halifax, I am deeply disturbed about the safety of our troops who find themselves in that impossible position in which the government has placed them. There is reason to be concerned about whether the protections under the Geneva convention would apply to Canadian troops who are participating in someone else's war at the very time that its own government is saying that we are not participating.

The fact is that the evidence is there for all to see. The government can no longer deny, even though it tried initially to mask the evidence, that we have Canadian military men and women on Iraqi soil, on ships that are accompanying warships involved in the Iraqi war, and in the air. What are they doing in the air? They are participating in the targeting of air strikes, of bombings in Iraq.

I know my time is almost up but I have to say that it makes no sense whatsoever for Canada to have taken the position that it took of non-participation and then turn around and hide behind what is a grotesque misrepresentation. It is an act of deception for the Prime Minister, the defence minister and the foreign affairs minister to say that the reason they are leaving the Canadian troops, at least 1,331 troops that have been acknowledged, who are involved in the combat zone, in there is because of an agreement Canada has with the U.S., the U.K. and Australia and one that we do not want to turn our backs on. That agreement specifically says that in the event of a war in which one of those countries becomes involved and in which Canada is not participating, then we bring our troops home.

Furthermore, that has always been the case. I do not know of a single example, although there may be one that proves the exception, but there are many examples for which military personnel and retired military personnel who are free to speak the truth know that under similar circumstances of a combat or a war in which Canada was a non-participant, we brought our troops home.

I will finish by pleading with government members to address this issue, to remove this deception that is being perpetrated on Canadians and to live up to our own obligations to our own military and to our own agreements.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among the parties and I believe that if you seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That following the conclusion of the debate on today's Canadian Alliance opposition motion all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put, a recorded division demanded and deferred until 3 p.m. Tuesday, April 8.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the House give its consent to the motion?

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Prince George—Peace River said earlier today, one of the great things about this country is that we can voice an opinion completely contrary to the government or to the official opposition and know that there is no consequences, except perhaps political consequences, for doing so. We can only wish that such was the case in Iraq.

I do agree with the member when she says that the government has never clearly laid out the substantive arguments for or against being in the conflict. It has tried to sit on the fence so much that it must be steadily picking splinters out of its backside. It is not fun to watch. It is not what a government should do in these times. I agree with her that it is not fun to watch.

I do not agree with the NDP's position but I respect its consistency. For example, it has said that it believes in working through the United Nations. However its leader has already expressed that even if the United Nations were to declare that the United Nations should go in to disarm Iraq, it still would not go. In other words, it would respect multilateralism, except that even if the UN were to agree to go into Iraq, it still would not go in. It is a pacifist position but it is not consistent even with her own statement.

She also said that real progress is made by working through the United Nations. I remember back to when our own General Dallaire begged with all he was worth for the United Nations to intervene in Rwanda. In fact he temporarily lost his sanity over it. He begged the United Nations to come in and prevent the slaughter in Rwanda. The United Nations was powerless, impotent and useless at a critical hour.

On the other hand, when we wanted the United Nations to go in and stop the ethnic cleansing that Milosevic was perpetrating on the people of Kosovo, the United Nations would not do it. Instead, we went without the United Nations' approval. I think most Canadians and certainly Kosovars were glad we did.

The member said that she could not support the motion because it wants to support the coalition in its reference to the reconstruction of Iraq. I do not know why she is against this. I saw Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, on TV a week ago saying that he expects the United States to pick up the bill for the reconstruction of Iraq. The UN will not do it, but of course the U.S. is already picking up the bill.

It is interesting that as it moves its armaments into Kuwait and into Iraq that the supply ships, with the aid, the reconstruction materials and the medicine for the people of Iraq, were side by side with the warships to make sure the aid got through. The Americans were not waiting for the United Nations. If they did that, the people of Iraq would starve to death. They are providing that help and assistance already, even before the United Nations has a game plan on how it might be done.

The member mentioned that it would be horrible if the U.S. wanted to create Iraq in its own image. I do not think the United States wants to recreate Iraq in its own image, although some of that would not be all that bad. What if Iraq actually ended up with a democracy? What if it ended up with property rights, with the right to benefit from its own resources, and with a human rights code that would prohibit the systemic abuse of its own citizens? That would not be such a bad thing. I think it would be a worthwhile thing. Of course that is what this whole effort from the coalition is about.

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I get equal time to respond because there were about five question there. However let me very quickly try to address them.

The first one is around the question of how the New Democratic Party can argue strenuously for multilateralism but then say that we are unalterably opposed to Canada participating in a war in Iraq. Well I will tell members why.

I think one has to take a clear position based on an evaluation of the situation as we know it. In this case we chose to take a position of leadership to try to prevent this war and to do so through the United Nations. We have always been realistic that if that failed, then every individual nation at the end of the day would have to exercise its judgment and its sovereignty. No country totally gives over the decision to any other body, including the United Nations, to compel it to enter a war.

It has to be acknowledged that Canada has a role to play and it has to choose how best to play that role. The overwhelming sentiment of Canadians is that our best role is in relation to the humanitarian efforts in this tragic situation and to the reconstruction. Anyone who does not acknowledge that reality, even on the basis of our existing military personnel being overstretched, they are turning their back on the obvious.

It is not a question of whether one is absolutely committed to multilateralism. It is a question of taking a responsible decision in the face of realities and in the face of events, which is why our position in the New Democratic Party is that we stand against this war. Our position has always been that Canada's best role should first be in preventing it. I believe it has been the wobbling and the waffling of the government that has caused confusion about where Canada stood in terms of prevention.

Canada's second role, in the event of war happening, should be its commitments to humanitarian aid and reconstruction.

On the issue of Rwanda, I have to say that of all the examples that get evoked again and again as the most persuasive examples of the inadequacies and failures of the United Nations, Rwanda seems to me to be a very instructive one.

Let me say that we agree that Rwanda was a colossal failure but what the Alliance fails to say every time it invokes Rwanda is that the two powers that stood most strenuously against intervention in Rwanda were the United States and the United Kingdom, which surely is a great irony and part of the historical picture that should be understood.

Yes, the United Nations is not perfect, and yes, there have been big failures, but surely those are reasons to strengthen the United Nations and make it a more effective body. In addition to the humanitarian effort and the reconstruction of Iraq, we also need to turn our attention to the kinds of reforms that are necessary to make the United Nations more effective. Among those, surely, is the desperate necessity to turn our attention to the issue of weapons of mass destruction, not just in the hands of Iraq or of a rogue nation, but in the hands of any nation in the world.

We need to address ourselves to that question because the capability of the human species to destroy the future of the world, both the planet and the human family, is awesome and should be very sobering as we address the bigger question of weapons of mass destruction needing to be stripped from the earth.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, my comment is not directed for the hon. member for Halifax but for the member across the way who made reference, I think casually and perhaps more callously than he had intended, in recalling the after effects of General Roméo Dallaire's condition, to losing his mind.

I think it would be far better to refer to the fact the General Dallaire did indeed suffer post-traumatic stress syndrome, was extraordinarily courageous in sharing that, and by doing so, helped facilitate a very strong set of programs within the Canadian armed forces to help those returning from that kind of a situation to assist them with that in recognition of it.

The incredible stature of Roméo Dallaire and all that he has been doing since, and the recognition given everywhere of a truly Canadian hero, should in no way be smirched by a casual and careless remark.

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Mr. Speaker, let me say that the member and I do not often agree on many things, but I think this is a very important point. General Dallaire is a genuine Canadian hero and a genuine, if I can say this, mentor to peace-loving people around the world.

This is a funny way to get something onto the agenda of the foreign affairs committee; I know there is another route. What we need to do as parliamentarians, and perhaps the foreign affairs committee is the route, as we come up to the 10th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide, is to inform ourselves and bring in both General Dallaire and some of the Canadian analysts who have been part of the detailed inquiry into the Rwanda genocide. As was said this morning at the foreign affairs committee by witnesses, we only will fail to repeat our mistakes of the past if we learn from our history.

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I need to address what was just raised in the House. None of my remarks were meant to besmirch the reputation of Mr. Dallaire, whom I hold in the highest esteem. I last heard him speak at the national prayer breakfast. He is a man admired by all Canadians and I am among them.

The point I was trying to make was that he was not supported by the United Nations and I think that was a shame.

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC)

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for St. John's West.

To warm up I want to read into the record the opposition motion that we are debating today:

That the House of Commons express its regret and apologize for offensive and inappropriate statements made against the United States of America by certain Members of this House; that it reaffirm the United States to be Canada's closest friend and ally and hope that the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is successful in removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power; and that the House urge the Government of Canada to assist the coalition in the reconstruction of Iraq.

We support that motion. I am glad it is before the House because some of the points that have been made and some of the language used by government members are uncalled for. They are undisciplined and very condescending and Canada will pay a price for that. In fact it is paying a price today in our relations with the United States of America.

We can disagree on what started this in terms of the war. We can disagree on the United Nations process and the Americans acting unilaterally, but at the end of the day, there is a way to express those feelings without resorting to the kind of language that some government members have used in the past number of weeks. They continue to do that because the Prime Minister allows them to do it.

If we look at the Prime Minister's record as a politician, the theme of anti-Americanism runs consistently throughout his career. I have many examples, Mr. Speaker, some of which you have been privy to, some of which you have experienced yourself. I want to go through some of them.

It goes back partly to when the Progressive Conservatives formed the government in 1984. One of the first things they wanted to do was to abolish the Foreign Investment Review Agency, FIRA. That was shortly before your time in the House, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals raged against that. Their position was not founded on reason, principle or fact in any way. It was simply an attack on America, because the Foreign Investment Review Agency had been set up by Prime Minister Trudeau specifically to keep American investment out of Canada. That was what it was set up to do. One could argue that it had an impact on European nations and Asian nations as well, but it clearly targeted the United States. We paid a big price for that in terms of lost investment and opportunity in Canada.

That was the start. The present Prime Minister encouraged that type of rhetoric, that type of debate in terms of the Liberal opposition to that initiative taken. It carried into the free trade debate and the 1988 election, the election which saw me enter the House of Commons as well as yourself, Mr. Speaker.

I know some of these remarks may be painful for you, Mr. Speaker, but I want to remind you and the listening public that again the Liberals at the time took a very undisciplined approach to that initiative. The language was very condescending. Their position had very little to do with reason, fact or principle. They were just raging against an agreement which they considered un-Canadian. The anti-American sentiments that came out of that election, I believe, took a heavy toll on the Liberal Party. Some Liberals survived.

However the fact is that the Canadian public sometimes sees through that smokescreen, that veil of protectionism. When we came back to the House of Commons following that election, and again the Liberal Party took a particular position on it, one of the things we attempted to do immediately was to join the Organization of American States.

That organization includes not only the United States but just about all the South American countries as well, including Mexico. It is a bilateral group which is there to promote economic and political stability within this hemisphere.

The language coming from the Liberals at that time again was totally anti-American. It had nothing to do with reason, fact or principle. It was simply anti-American. The litany of the sense of what the Liberal Party was all about came to the floor of the House of Commons day after day. It was nothing really to do with fact or reason.

When it came to the gulf war in 1990-91, I can remember, the former prime minister of Canada, John Turner, standing in his place in the House supporting the United Nations initiative to take action in the gulf. When he spoke in the House of Commons in support of the Conservative government's position, every single member of the Liberal Party left the chamber. He was standing alone, a former prime minister of Canada, because he was the only one in the Liberal Party at that time who had enough backbone to stand up and support what the rest of the world was doing through the United Nations in the gulf.

The enemy was the same enemy, Saddam Hussein, who had invaded Kuwait after having invaded Iran.

The Liberals' position was totally based on that familiar theme of anti-Americanism. Public opinion turned on the issue. Eventually the public got behind that. They could see that this guy by the name of Saddam Hussein, this monster, had to be dealt with. When the public got behind the issue, eventually the Liberal Party got behind it. The present Prime Minister, then the leader of the opposition, stood in his place in the House and completely changed his position but with a qualifier. He said that they would support sending troops to the gulf but if hostilities or war broke out, they would leave. He has not changed and neither has the Liberal Party.

One article I was reading the other day pointed to an open mike at a NATO summit that the Prime Minister was attending in Brussels in 1997. He did not know the mike was turned on and he said of his foreign policy that it was not to do what the Americans do but if one railed against the Americans one would be successful as the prime minister of Canada.

We paid a big price for that. Individual members of Parliament now have to take it upon themselves to resolve problems that normally would be resolved by the Government of Canada if we had a strong relationship between our government and the government in Washington, which we do not have. I can speak of circumstances in my own riding. I have to work directly with American senators and congressmen to resolve border issues simply because there is no goodwill in Washington and Ottawa. We cannot rely on that goodwill to resolve problems.

When the phone rings in Washington today and if the call is coming from a cabinet minister or anyone remotely connected with the Liberal government, they simply do not answer the phone or do not return the call. What they are telling us, and it is coming from businessmen all across the country, is we are going to pay a price for this in terms of investment and opportunity.

There are many examples today where we have started to pay that price. There are contracts in the aerospace industries that are just not happening because they do not want to do business with us. Tourism is going to suffer.

We must put an end to those remarks. The Prime Minister should have condemned those types of remarks to make it perfectly clear to Washington, Ottawa, and Canadians that they are not acceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend who has just finished speaking. I find it rather interesting because the usual line from the opposition parties when they are talking about the Prime Minister and his caucus is that the Prime Minister is allegedly some kind of dictator who exercises thought control over the caucus and the caucus cannot do anything without his approval.

Yet, the hon. member just a few minutes ago stood up and said that with regard to these unfortunate remarks made by certain members the Prime Minister just let them do it. The hon. member cannot have it both ways.

When it comes to these two or three unfortunate remarks that have been made over the last two or three weeks, no one on this side condones those kinds of remarks. Those things happen. They are unfortunate and regrettable.

When we disagree with our American friends--and they are our best friends, we support them and we are not anti-American--we do not personalize it. When we find that this has happened on a couple of occasions, that is regrettable. The Deputy Prime Minister made it very clear this morning that this kind of talk is not condoned.

There is not a strain of anti-Americanism on this side. I find it regrettable that the opposition members would use the kind of language and make the kinds of allegations that would in effect tear the relationship that exists between Canada and the United States. We have a strong relationship. We are solid friends.

While there may have been in the past two or three regrettable remarks on this side of the House, the kind of talk from opposition members would equally, if not more, contribute to the possible deterioration in the relationship which remains strong and will get stronger.

Mr. Greg Thompson

Mr. Speaker, this is coming from a member who built his career on anti-American statements in the 1988 election. That is one of the reasons he was elected. If members recall, we were going to become the 51st state, which was totally illogical.

The Prime Minister's hold on his caucus varies depending on the situation. For example, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, when the war started, was very hawkish. He totally supported the American position to act unilaterally, contrary to most of the members on his side of the House. Two weeks later he completely flip-flopped his position. In other words, he was questioning the legality of the war and that the Americans should not have gone in.

There is only one reason that he changed his position. His position was changed by the heavy-handedness of the Prime Minister who basically took one of his backbenchers aside and said, “Listen. That is not our position. We do not support this. You're not going to support it”. The member went back home and completely reversed his position. He swallowed himself whole and was forced to do so by the Prime Minister.

The only other thing that we could logically assume from that position was that some of his constituents were telling him that they favoured his original position. However, there is no question of the Prime Minister having things his way and not allowing any dissension within the ranks.

I do not think the member opposite has to give us his interpretation of how the Prime Minister acts and reacts. There is plenty of evidence out there for Canadians to see. What they see they do not like. Perhaps they could learn from some of the comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister because he is taking one of the few reasonable positions among all the frontbench members on the government side.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from New Brunswick Southwest for sharing his time. He has already stated our position on the motion. I will confine my remarks directly to that motion, which I am sure will both surprise and please the House.

The motion itself is a two part motion. One part deals with the unfortunate comments made not only by backbenchers but by front line ministers in the government. That must be a concern not only to the party but to the House and to the country because these remarks have been carried more so than the common sense, solid, responsible debate that has gone on in the House and in the country.

I do not blame some of the backbenchers because I am sure it is out of frustration. They see a Prime Minister, who most of them do not support anyway, who has waffled back and forth on the issue of involvement, and they see the person who they think will be their next leader disappear completely from the scene. Where is the next messiah of the Liberal Party in all of this? It is a question everyone is asking. He is doing what he has always done on major issues, he has ducked.

The other unfortunate thing about the first part of the resolution, which requests an apology, is from whom the request comes. It is like the old story of the pot and the kettle because the leader of the Alliance, who is asking for the apology, called the Minister of National Defence an idiot some time ago and I do not believe has apologized. It is pretty hard to expect others to apologize when he himself makes similar insulting remarks and refuses to apologize. Having said that, let us say that apologies should be made. Those remarks should not have been made in the first place. Let us get on with supporting our friends and allies, which is really the crux of the resolution.

It is difficult to know where the government stands. From the beginning the Prime Minister gave varying answers. Every time we picked up a newspaper, listened to him in the House or in scrums, we got a similar type of confusing response that did not clearly indicate where the government or the country was in all of this. The government was totally supporting a Bloc resolution that stated:

That this House call upon the government not to participate in the military intervention initiated by the United States in Iraq.

The Prime Minister and the government totally supported the resolution. The following day the Minister of National Defence was asked whether we would participate if biological weapons were found or if germ warfare was used? He responded that just because the government voted for a resolution did not mean it could not change its mind. It is complete and utter inconsistency.

Day after day we are told we are not participating and yet we have troops actively involved. We have ships that are in position and undoubtedly are playing a part in the war that is going on. I am not saying that is wrong. They should be there. I agree with them being there and we should solidly support them. We should not deny that they exist. We are telling 30 individuals and their families that we deny the fact that they are involved. Let us respect the people who are involved in this confrontation. Let us support our own people, our allies, and our friends.

I listened to the minister speak this morning because I thought I would hear something of significance. He said that our friends are at war. They certainly are and we should be there to help them, not to stay home, watch them on television and cheer.

Once people across Canada understood what was happening their support started to shift. This happened in Australia where the Prime Minister came under tremendous pressure when he indicated that his country would be participating in this confrontation. The people of Australia strongly supported that move because it was the right thing to do. They knew Australia had to go in with its friends.

Our Prime Minister has said clearly that if the United Nations had sanctioned the war, it would have been okay. However, he said that his government did not agree with regime change. The minister said this morning that when the war is over and Saddam is gone, we will move in and help with restructuring, et cetera. He wants Saddam gone. He is saying we need regime change to protect the people of Iraq and the rest of us in the free world. This will be a great subject for a thesis for someone down the line when an analysis is done of the various conflicting statements that have come from the government in relation to the war.

The minister stated it was unfortunate that people booed the United States national anthem at some hockey games and other events. I agree with that statement. We have the right to disagree and we do disagree in the House. Many disagree vehemently with what is happening in the world today and Canada is part of that. I respect the right of individuals to disagree with my stand on an issue, but I hope they respect my right to disagree with them. That is true not only here, but across Canada and around the world.

While we can disagree with each other, if we are friends and part of an overall team then we should respect each other. Respect is the word lacking here and across the country. It is lacking mainly because of the signals being sent to Canadians from this very House. It is hard to expect someone who only picks up bits and pieces of information in the news media to respect our friends and neighbours.

When the going gets tough, that is the time friends should support each other. The going is tough now in the world. Even if we have no reserve players to boost the team, nobody to call up to help, we could at least tell our closest friends and neighbours that we support them morally. We did not do that in the beginning. It was clear that we did not support the effort. It is on the record here.

We should tell those countries that we can offer them our support. We can move our troops from Afghanistan. We can use our ships wherever needed to move in food and supplies and backup those countries where necessary. We will recognize the fact that our troops are involved, and we will support and strengthen them wherever we can.

The government has not handled this situation well, and unfortunately, Canada will pay a price for this. However, it is not too late to correct what we have done. We can do this by first recognizing the fact that we have insulted our friends. Not only did we ignore them but we insulted them. We can correct that with an apology. We can support our own military personnel and others who are involved to the hilt so we will have a better country. This way we will be surrounded by friends who will help us if they are needed. Collectively we can create a better world.