Debates of March 27th, 2003

Iraq

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the will of the House. Indeed, the will of the House has been expressed clearly in response to a motion, which states:

--consequently the government [of Canada] repatriate all soldiers and military material in the region that could be used in a war effort in the conflict in Iraq.

This motion was soundly defeated by the House one week ago by a ratio of four to one. Indeed, in terms of the exchange soldiers and the ships, the House has spoken very clear.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has decided not to send combat troops to Iraq. There are many other ways we could be showing our support for our allies and making a positive contribution to resolving the Iraqi crisis.

Could the Minister of National Defence inform the House whether he has considered sending a field hospital to Iraq to help deal with the mounting casualties of war? Has the cabinet discussed such options and, if not, will he inform us why not?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is practical to send a field hospital under the United Nations banner into a war zone.

However, as my colleague, the Minister for International Cooperation has explained, Canada is very much there for the post-war reconstruction phase in Iraq. As I have said several times in the House, we are making a very major contribution in Afghanistan in terms of the security operations. In addition, my colleague has already committed $250 million to that venture.

In terms of post-war activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Government of Canada is very much there.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, sending a field hospital to Iraq would be a welcome contribution by our allies and a concrete, positive step to show Canada will not shy away from the difficult task of reconstructing Iraq.

Canada also has ships in the Persian Gulf to assist with the war on terrorism.

The Minister of National Defence has confirmed he would not engage offensively in the war in Iraq. Has Canada considered volunteering those ships as escorts to provide safe passage for ships carrying humanitarian supplies through the Persian Gulf to Iraqi ports?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no doubt that should the situation become such that humanitarian ships will pass through the Persian Gulf to bring relief to the people of Iraq, then absolutely our ships will be there to protect them from any potential attack.

We are there to protect the maritime traffic of our allies. We are proud of our role in an environment, as the opposition has indicated, that becomes increasingly risky with every passing day. We are there for our allies, not least humanitarian aid.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from the front benches to the darkest corners of the caucus, Liberals are howling anti-American rhetoric and screaming for the expulsion of Ambassador Cellucci. Yet there has not been a murmur from the other side about Saddam's front man in North America being holed up in his embassy here in Ottawa, not one murmur.

What is wrong with sending a signal to Saddam Hussein that Canada knows right from wrong, good from evil? When will the Prime Minister do the right thing and send the Iraqi front man home to Iraq?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we did the right thing last December when we asked for the expulsion of an Iraqi diplomat long before this came to the attention of the opposition and made this a cause célèbre for them. I can assure the House that I have spoken to the American embassy here and I have its assurance that the American government is perfectly content with the way that Canada is handling this important issue.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein's regime is as evil as the world has ever seen. The Prime Minister wants to keep the lines of communications with him open. There is absolutely no way that we should be communicating with our enemy. The Prime Minister should be doing the right thing, which is what he was asked to do formally by Washington.

When will the Prime Minister communicate with the whole world and send a message that the Iraqi front man is being expelled because Canada knows what is right and what is evil?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Canada also knows that we have to work toward finding a resolution to this terrible problem. We will continue to take the steps that are constructive and not merely politically expedient, as is constantly urged upon us by the opposition.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we asked the Minister of Defence if Canadians soldiers seconded to foreign units had ever taken part in armed conflicts in the past while Canada was not at war.

The Minister of Defence admitted this was a good question. The problem is that the minister, his office or Defence officials have yet to answer our questions.

I am therefore directing my question to the Prime Minister. In the past, have Canadians soldiers seconded to foreign units participated in armed conflicts while Canada was not at war, as in the current context of the war in Iraq? Did it ever happen, yes or no?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am inquiring about this matter involving events dating back some 30 years.

The hon. member should know that the United States remains Canada's greatest ally and friend. Exchanges are important to allow us to work alongside our American and British allies.

These are extremely important because Canada is never alone in military operations. It is therefore very important that we maintain our participation in such exchanges, and that is what we are doing.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the minister that, until proven otherwise, with the exception of the current war against Iraq, Canadian military on exchange programs did not participate in the Vietnam war or the American invasion of the Dominican Republic, Grenada and Panama, because Canada was not at war.

Is the Prime Minister not being two faced when he tells the public that Canada does not support the war against Iraq when in fact Canadian soldiers are fighting that war?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the government must always take into consideration a number of risks and factors, such as the importance of participating with our allies, the lives and well-being of our troops, and the risk to our allies' troops if we were to pull out. These are all considerations.

The government took them all into account and is comfortable with the position taken with respect to exchange programs.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein's terror tactics include beheading women of families suspected of disloyalty. This terror tactic is done in public to maximize fear. Since this behaviour of Saddam Hussein is well known, why did the Liberal government not support our historic allies to stop Saddam Hussein dead in his tracks?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why from the very beginning we were very strong supporters of the efforts of the United States to deal with the disarmament of Saddam Hussein through resolution 1441, why we have always taken the point of view that the best way to approach this type of issue is through a multilateral coalition which will enable us to deal effectively with it and why we strongly support the idea of international criminal sanctions which can be applied by appropriate international means to ensure that the perpetrators of this type of crime are brought to justice.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about multilateral. On March 24, 1999, the Prime Minister stated in the House:

--the time has come to tell the leader of the Republic of Yugoslavia that we cannot tolerate the activities that he is imposing on the people of [Yugoslavia]...

Then, without a UN resolution, we entered a just war against tyranny.

With exactly the same logic, why are we tolerating the same activities that Saddam Hussein is perpetrating on the people of Iraq? Why are we not supporting our allies?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware there was an attack to stop the genocide and Milosevic was voted out by the people of Serbia. That is the process which exists. We do not go around the globe, replacing the leaders who we do not like. However, if they commit genocide, we have the obligation to intervene and we have done it, under the authority of NATO.

Agriculture

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture made known his intention to implement, come what may, his agricultural policy framework on April 1. However, we read in the newspapers that the minister has commissioned an independent study, the results of which will be known a few months from now.

What reasons can the minister give for implementing his framework before even examining the findings of the study that he himself commissioned?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the hon. member get his facts straight before he asks a question.

The industry has asked to have an independent group look at the programs that are in place and the programs that are being proposed at the present time. I have indicated that we are prepared and willing to do that. It should take only two weeks to do that.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Agriculture is operating in total isolation. Farmers in Quebec, and in eastern and western Canada oppose this. The opposition is against it, and even the members of the Liberal caucus are against it.

Before the minister destroys a perfectly good system that has proven itself, could he not show prudence, slow down and delay implementing this policy framework?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House yesterday, the farmers in Canada have not had a disaster program since December 1 last year. With the encouragement of members of the opposition and members of the government party, we got the funding to do so and to develop a better plan than we have had in the past to get that money there on a permanent basis for a number of years ahead.

I have said all along that April 1 was not a deadline for that, that we had time to develop it this year so that it could be there for producers to use this year, and we will have that in place.

Government Contracts

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the past 10 years the maritime helicopter replacement project has seen $800 million in cancellation fees and increasing maintenance costs on our 40 year old Sea Kings. Today the government has embarked on a pre-qualification phase, something new, that it claims would speed things up.

Could the Public Works Minister explain how omitting best value and basing this pre-qualifier only on lowest price would get us the right helicopter?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the procurement strategy for the maritime helicopter project is consistent with the Treasury Board best value contract policy. It ensures that all potential suppliers will be bidding on exactly what the military needs, allowing Canada to seek the best price among all the compliant bidders. It is based on clear, rigorous, mandatory requirements. It includes a requirement for long term, in-service support thereby acknowledging the importance of life cycle costs. It matches the needs of the Canadian forces, as identified in the statement of operational requirements, with the needs of Canadians for the responsible stewardship of public funds.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the minister claims our military planners, he is blaming this on DND, requested a slower, smaller, lighter helicopter with less range and less capacity. Why would they want less than they have now? I am sure the Prime Minister can live with that but the forces deserve better.

The Minister of Public Works has never explained why the contract was split and re-bundled. Why was this unprecedented pre-qualification put in place? Will he clear the air now? Or is he prepared to spend his retirement in front of a judge, testifying in the next round of lawsuits?