Debates of Jan. 28th, 2003

Iraq

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are glad he is finally listening to our leader.

In its resolution the UN clearly demonstrates that it understands the only thing Saddam Hussein has ever responded to is the threat of serious consequences for his barbaric actions. In order to provide a strong deterrent to Saddam Hussein, the growing multilateral coalition of nations, including Australia, Great Britain, the Czech Republic and others, is deploying to the region to back up the UN resolution.

Why will the Prime Minister not commit to a Canadian deployment to help support the United Nations resolution to disarm Saddam Hussein?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, resolution 1441 is very clear. We were one of among the first during the summer to ask the United States and Britain to go in front of the United Nations to get a resolution. Resolution 1441 is a unanimous decision of the Security Council. We want Saddam Hussein and everybody to respect the United Nations and go according to the resolution.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration believes the UN Security Council resolution 1441 gives the U.S. all the legitimacy it needs for military intervention in Iraq. Yesterday the Prime Minister stated that resolution 1441 is very clear.

Will he now tell us if he shares George Bush's opinion? Does the Prime Minister believe that with resolution 1441, the U.S. does not need a second Security Council resolution in order to attack Iraq? Yes or no?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if Saddam Hussein fails to comply with resolution 1441, not only the U.S., but its allies too will be there to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are removed from Iraq. That is the resolution. It is very clear. We must wait for a clear report from the inspectors. Mr. Blix has asked for more time to do his work. We believe that we must give him more time so that we can make a decision based on a full report.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that resolution 1441 is very clear. This is indeed true, particularly the last article, article 14, which specifies that the Security Council, and I quote, “Decides to remain seized of the matter”. So, nothing has been decided and it is up to the Security Council to meet and decide by way of a second resolution.

Given the clarity of resolution 1441, can the Prime Minister tell us who must decide on military intervention in Iraq, the Security Council, with a second resolution, or the United States, on its own?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first we have to wait for the inspectors, under the authority of Mr. Blix, to do their work and report to the UN. All of the questions the member is asking are questions that will need to be raised in the House once Mr. Blix has submitted a report, after having been satisfied with the work he has done and with the facility of carrying out his work in Iraq. In order to accomplish this, he needs time. We believe he must be given the time necessary to do the job properly.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, paragraph 14 of UN Security Council resolution 1441 states that the Security Council decides to remain seized of the matter.

Does the Prime Minister understand that when the Security Council decides to remain seized of the matter, this means that it wants to reserve judgment until later and decide whether Saddam Hussein has met the conditions? Does the Prime Minister believe that this is the Security Council's duty and will he wait until it has fulfilled that duty before making any decisions?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the best example that the process is working well is that Mr. Blix reported to the Security Council yesterday and said that he was going to present another report to the Security Council. This indicates that the Security Council's authority is being respected in the way things are being done and I hope this will always be the case.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not have the right to feign ignorance. Many people might be in favour of going to war against Iraq, but France might exercise its veto power in the Security Council.

Under these circumstances, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is up to the Security Council to decide and not the U.S.? It is the United Nations, and not the United States that must decide. Does he acknowledge that?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, maybe we should wait until there has been a veto before we talk about it.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure Canadians do not take the view that we should wait until everything happens before we talk about it. We want the Prime Minister to tell us what the position of the Canadian government is now. It is a fair, procedural question for Canadians to want to know what the Prime Minister's position is with respect to the need for a second Security Council resolution.

Will it be the United Nations that makes a judgment on the weapons inspectors' final report or will it be the United States? What is the Prime Minister's position? He owes the Canadian people an explanation of where he is at on this.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Blix will report to the Security Council again. He provided an interim report. He said he needed more time and then he will report again. After the report, he will advise.

In terms of debating that, we had question period yesterday, we have question period today, and there will be a debate tomorrow night when all members will be able to express their views.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, I am asking the Prime Minister, through you, where he thinks the authority lies for making a judgment as to what follows from the final report of Mr. Blix. Does it reside with the United Nations Security Council or with the United States?

As for Parliament's role, could he tell us if he will allow a vote on whether or not Canada will participate in any military action? He did not answer that question yesterday.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the process in the House, we have done that clearly for many years. We always have debates on that. We will have a debate tomorrow night on that. Mr. Blix will not report for weeks and we want members to express their views right now.

There is a time when the government decides. It is the constitutional authority of the government to decide and if the opposition believes that the government is not doing its job properly, it can always vote non-confidence.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he will follow established parliamentary procedures on votes about war. On October 19, 1990, the House agreed to a government motion that spelled out:

...the undertaking of the Government to present a further resolution to this House in the event of the outbreak of hostilities involving Canadian Forces in and around the Arabian Peninsula--

As the prospect of hostilities grew, the House was then recalled especially for a further motion and a vote.

Why will the Prime Minister not allow, in this crisis, the kind of vote by Parliament upon which he insisted during the Gulf War?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when we have to make decisions like that, for example, in the case of Kosovo, we follow the precedent that has existed for a long time. It is a decision of the government and the government can always be defeated if it makes the wrong decision through a confidence vote.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the master of the double standard on everything he does.

I have a question for the minister of defence. The minister of defence has said that Canadian Forces in the Persian Gulf area are ready for military action should the time come. The minister knows the trouble his predecessor got into when the rules of engagement for Canadian troops in Afghanistan were not clear, including the treatment of prisoners of war.

Can the minister inform the House whether new rules of engagement pertaining to military action in Iraq have been issued to Canadian troops now in the area. And, if so, when were those new rules of engagement issued?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, that question is triply hypothetical. There may be no war. If there is a war, there may be no Canadian participation. Who knows what the rules of engagement might be for a hypothetical Canadian contribution to a hypothetical war?

National Defence

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last year the government made a huge flourish about giving raises to our military families. What it is doing next month with much less flourish is to slash and cut the cost of living allowance of military families making them substantially worse off this year than last.

What kind of a government do we have that while we are sending our troops off to a potential war, and their families are dealing with that, the government has chosen to slash their incomes?

I ask the Minister of National Defence, will he halt next month's cuts to their cost of living allowance? Yes or no.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I think the whole House should congratulate my predecessor for making quality of life his top priority over five years. As a consequence, the Canadian Forces receive substantially higher wages, a substantially higher income for areas where the price of housing is much higher, and substantially improved health care.

We still have work to do but a huge amount of progress has been made.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the minister, that is absolute nonsense. Our armed forces personnel possibly are going to war. Their families are concerned. Next month the government is going to slash their cost of living allowance. Last year in November it increased the rents on their substandard homes.

When is the minister going to do the right thing and halt these cuts to their income? I ask him, for the sake of our armed forces personnel, to stop these demoralizing cuts now.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, there is no one who has more respect for the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces than the people on this side of the House. With all due respect to the hon. member, what I said is true. There have been substantial increases in the salaries and quality of life of our military. That is a fact.

Iraq

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

Mr. Speaker, when the time came to ratify the Kyoto protocol, the Prime Minister said that the issue was important enough to warrant a vote in the House of Commons, and he added that this would be a vote of confidence in the government.

The environment is an important issue, but the decision to go to war is at least as important. If the Prime Minister feels that this is an issue of confidence, he should let members of Parliament vote on it.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, for several years now, our practice has been to consult the House whenever Canada participates in a military operation. This has been done every time since the current Prime Minister took office, even when only a small number of troops were involved. This is what we have done, and the government is committed to continue to do so. Incidentally, there will be a debate tomorrow evening on this issue, and there was unanimous consent in the House yesterday on how to proceed.

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

Mr. Speaker, a recent poll shows that the public does not want Canada to take part in a war against Iraq. Members of Parliament receive comments from their voters on this issue and, as representatives of the public, they wish to have the opportunity to vote on it.

Does the Prime Minister's refusal to let parliamentarians vote on this issue, despite what his party always said when it was in the opposition, not show that his only fear is the fear of being defeated by his own members on this issue?