House of Commons Hansard #55 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was wheat.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, historically, Canada has always taken a diplomatic approach to resolving international crises. We need only recall Lester B. Pearson's interventions during the Suez crisis, and the Canadian army's numerous peace missions.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to urge his principle allies to seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Iraq?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, that is what I hope. I spoke with Mr. Blair, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia. Everyone is hoping for a diplomatic solution.
What we do not know, however, is whether or not Saddam Hussein will agree to such a solution. We have reached the point where we have to begin preparing a response to Saddam Hussein in the event he rejects the diplomatic proposals now being put forward by Russia and France.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, in 1991, Canada took part in the Gulf war, under the control of the United Nations.
If, unfortunately, all diplomatic efforts were to fail, does the Prime Minister think that the ideal solution would be for any military intervention to take place under the control of the United Nations?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it is desirable and it is what we are hoping for, except that the situation is now as follows: Saddam Hussein is not observing the commitments he made at the time of the ceasefire, and the military intervention in 1991 was authorized by the United Nations.
Saddam Hussein signed a ceasefire agreement and now he is not complying with it. We therefore have the authority to proceed, under the 1991 resolution, which Saddam Hussein is not complying with.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Russian president Boris Yeltsin believes that a military strike in Iraq at this point could lead to a global conflict. His remarks are troubling, especially because they come from a member of the UN security council. Again this morning, upon arriving in Rome for an official visit, the president of Russia reiterated his support for a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis.
Before establishing its position in the matter, did the Canadian government try to find out the position of the Russian government, which continues to promote a negotiated solution to the conflict?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I had discussions with Mr. Primakov, the foreign minister of Russia, in which we discussed the issue of Iraq extensively. At that time he expressed the need for a diplomatic solution. The Prime Minister has said exactly the same thing. It is the hope of all of us that we can find a peaceful resolution to a very difficult situation. We will continue to support those efforts and take our own initiatives to try to promote the development of a means of reconciliation.
As the Prime Minister has said, the fact of the matter is that for the past seven years Saddam Hussein has been refusing to abide by the UN obligations he agreed to on the ceasefire in 1991. At some point you have to be able to say that—
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that a number of Canada's allies do not support a military intervention.
France, Italy and Belgium continue to oppose a military solution to the conflict with Iraq. Did Canada, a member of the OSCE, have discussions with these three countries, which all continue to believe in a negotiated solution to the conflict?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, we are in constant contact with all the countries involved. As we have made very clear, perhaps the most important contact is to gain the views of members of Parliament from all across Canada. That is the most important consultation. We would like to have the co-operation of the opposition in doing that.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, Canadians were alarmed this morning to hear the U.S. Secretary of State announce Canadian support for use of substantial military force against Iraq.
My question for the Prime Minister is, is that true? If so, why this contempt of Parliament which has not yet debated this serious matter? And if it is not true, will the Prime Minister lodge an official protest with the U.S. government for its misrepresentation of Canada's position?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, our position is clear. I said to the President of the United States yesterday as I said to the Prime Minister of Great Britain this morning, that I do not want to give Canada's commitment until I have sought the view of the House of Commons. If Ms. Albright indicated that I said yes, it is misinformation. I said that I had to consult the House and I want to do it today.
I hope you will not use procedures to prevent me from consulting you. I want your views.
In passing, I informed the leader of the Labour Party in England of the position of the NDP on this matter.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, most countries are calling for more aggressive diplomacy, not unilateral military aggression. Even General Norman Schwarzkopf says bombing will not work. A better way to gain Iraqi compliance with UN weapons inspections is to ease trade sanctions which have already killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Why does Canada not lead the way as we did with land mines? Why not intensify our efforts to work through the United Nations for a multilateral diplomatic solution?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we have spent weeks and months with Saddam Hussein trying to achieve that solution. That is why the Secretary-General of the United Nations is calling for respect of the resolutions of the security council. We are doing everything we can. However, there comes a time when we must say to Saddam Hussein “Respect the obligation that you took in 1991 or else”. We are getting ready to do the “or else”. When the times comes we must be ready to do that.
Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, for more than a week now my party has been calling for a proper debate to be held in the House of Commons on the Iraq question, not a group therapy session but a debate based on the known position of the government and the information it is prepared to give to the House.
I want to know why the government has waited a whole week and why the President of the United States is the one behind a debate in the House and not the members of the Canadian Parliament, who are entitled to the respect of this House and to an opportunity to hear the government's position, not group therapy.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, during the last Parliament, we developed the habit of consulting the House of Commons before making final decisions.
We know the leader of the Conservative Party was often away from the House at that time, but we did develop that habit of consulting the House of Common's opinion before adopting a position.
If you want me to adopt a position and to commit the government before consulting Parliament, fine, that will make things easy for me. With all due respect, I am offering to consult the opposition, yet it does not want to be consulted. Fine, just say so and I will turn up with a position and then, when the government has decided, you will vote for or against it. But I thought you could contribute to the debate before a decision is reached.
IraqOral Question Period
The Speaker
Once again, my colleagues, I would ask you to please make your remarks to the Chair. Also, we should not make any references to who is or who is not here.
Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister speaks about respect for the opposition and the other parties. Basic respect would start by informing the House of Commons and its members of what is happening and offering briefings on what is happening.
The Americans are ready to offer briefings to members of this House on what is happening. Our own government has not even done that yet. Respect starts by explaining to this House what the Canadian position is, not group therapy in the House of Commons.
Would the prime minister have the decency of informing the House today whether or not he told President Clinton that he prefers actions under the auspices of the United Nations rather than seeing the Americans act alone? Will he at least inform us of that today?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, let me say that the United Nations authorized action in 1991 against Saddam Hussein. After the attack, a ceasefire agreement was drawn up which Saddam Hussein is not respecting. If he does not respect the ceasefire agreement, it means we have the authority to move.
What is the hon. member complaining about? We want to have a debate but he does not want it. Last week he asked for a debate. I asked for a debate tonight and he does not want one. He should make up his mind. He is as confused as ever.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, twice last week the finance minister avoided answering a pretty simple question so we will try again.
The finance minister knows that the 3% and 5% surtaxes were introduced as temporary measures until the budget was balanced. The budget is now balanced. When will the finance minister eliminate the 3% and 5% surtaxes?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the government has made very clear on a number of occasions its intention to reduce taxes. In fact, in previous budgets we have reduced taxes and we will continue to do so over subsequent budgets.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, we are asking him specifically about the 3% and 5% surtaxes. The government has a contract with the people of Canada. The people of Canada have fulfilled their end of the deal. They have balanced the budget. They pay extraordinarily high taxes to balance the budget.
My question is when will the finance minister fulfil his end of the contract? When will he eliminate the 3% and 5% surtax?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, this government certainly does have a contract with the Canadian people. It is called the social contract. It is there to protect the social fabric of this nation.
The fact is that the NDP, in seeking to gut health care, in not wanting to put enough money into research and development, in not wanting to put enough money into education, is seeking to gut equalization. What the Reform Party seeks to do is to break the social contract.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, during the recent ice storm, which seriously damaged Quebec's hydroelectric system, an essential public service as everyone knows, the Prime Minister always left the door open to possible compensation. Last Friday, the President of the Treasury Board categorically refused to pay such compensation.
My question is for the Prime Minister: How can the federal government justify its refusal to compensate Quebec, when it compensated Newfoundland and Manitoba in almost identical situations under the same compensation clauses?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, it is true that Newfoundland received $1,750,000 in compensation in 1984, but in a situation that was completely different from the one we are now talking about.
In 1988, the directives indicated very clearly that there would not be compensation for public utilities, and it is clear that Hydro-Québec is a large company. It is a company that clearly has the ability to raise money itself. It is a company that may borrow, on international markets if need be, and it is a company that will—
Ice StormOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for Témiscamingue has the floor.