Debates of Jan. 29th, 2003

Iraq

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

Mr. Speaker, he did not answer my question. Allied forces, such as Great Britain, Australia, Czechoslovakia and others do not believe that Saddam Hussein is complying with the UN process. This multilateral coalition of countries is determined to intensify pressure on Saddam Hussein in order to force him to respect the UN and, maybe, avoid war.

Why does the Prime Minister not agree with our allies?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is because we believe that the unity of the Security Council is vital. We are seeing that the process works.

I am very happy that the President of the United States said there is tangible evidence and that he will present it to the Security Council next week. This is where the case must be proven. Then, Mr. Blix will submit his report. By February 14, we will know what we are dealing with. This is what we said last summer, and we are following it to the letter.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his state of the union address last night, President Bush underscored that when it comes time to attack Iraq, and I quote, “the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others”.

Will the Prime Minister tell us if he, too, is ready to go to war against Iraq, regardless of what the UN Security Council decides?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have said from the outset that the process must take place in the Security Council and in compliance with the Security Council's resolution.

We are waiting to see what the Security council will say following the appearance of Mr. Powell and Mr. Blix on February 5 and 14.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is feigning ignorance of the current situation. France and Germany have both said that a second resolution is required, that they may exercise their veto power.

The Prime Minister has just told us that the unity of the Security Council is vital. If it is indeed so vital, can he tell us, if the Security Council is not unanimous, if the Security Council does not authorize military intervention in Iraq, will he stand with the United States and thumb his nose at the rest of the world? People have a right to know what Canada's position is.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our position is very clear. We are waiting for the conclusions of the Security Council. We are not coming to our own conclusions, we are not taking any hypothetical positions.

We called for a process. We want this process to be followed by everyone, and once the process is completed, we will hear what the Security Council has to say and we will act freely, as an independent country.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the U.S. President feels he has all the evidence he needs to launch an offensive against Iraq and has no intention of holding back because of the UN Security Council. This he made quite clear in his statement yesterday.

Does the Prime Minister of Canada not understand that, by his attitude, his unwillingness to be clearer on the Canadian position, he is undermining the role of the UN Security Council, perhaps our last hope to avert war in Iraq?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, by asking everyone to follow the UN process, we are helping the UN Security Council. If everyone takes a different position, that weakens the Security Council.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are currently two attitudes toward the issue of Iraq: there are those who consider that the matter of war and peace is too important to be left in the hands of a single nation and that it should be put in the hands of the UN instead, and there are those who think that the U.S. can do as it pleases.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that, by not taking a clear, straightforward position in favour of a second Security Council resolution, he is siding with those who are leaving it up to the Americans, which does nothing to help the United Nations?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, for the umpteenth time, I will repeat that our policy is to follow the UN process and that we are waiting for the two reports, which are scheduled to be tabled before the Security Council on February 5 and 14 respectively. After the Security Council has made a decision, we will make our own. It cannot be the other way around; we have to follow the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Last night the President of the United States made it very clear that America intends to proceed, with or without UN approval.

Does the Prime Minister agree with President Bush that the Americans have the right to put together this coalition of the willing, with or without United Nations approval? Would he assure us that if the Americans do act without UN approval we will not be among the willing?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the NDP members should not participate very seriously in that debate because they have already said that even if the United Nations authorizes action they would not be there. So they should not participate. They are already out of the arena, but for us, we think it is a very serious problem. We want the nations to be together. We want Saddam Hussein to know that the United Nations is demanding once more for him to disarm, and of course if he refuses to disarm, he will have to face some very severe consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, at least we are prepared to answer difficult questions even if the Prime Minister does not like our answers, which is more than we can say for him on the floor of the House.

I ask him again, does he agree with President Bush that he has the right to pursue war on Iraq without UN approval? Might I also ask, given his respect for process, will he say to the House once more why it is that he will not allow his own members to have a choice with respect to whether or not Canada goes to war on Iraq?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have a very clear position. We intend to respect the resolution of the Security Council. Already the NDP would not respect the decision of the United Nations if it is not the one it wants. For us, we respect this institution, the United Nations, and it is the best guardian we have against war.

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Prime Minister Tony Blair heads back to Camp David to make Britain's case to President Bush on Iraq.

My question is for the Prime Minister. When is he going to Camp David?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States does not need to consult me today. He has known since the month of August what the position of Canada is. We have always been very clear.

Yes, I have talked with Mr. Blair many times. In October when I was in Africa I said to Mr. Blair that the best solution for him, as for everybody, was to have a resolution of the UN--

[The Speaker]

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I asked yesterday about rules of engagement for Canadian Forces in Iraq, the hypothetical minister of defence said, who knows?

There are 54 members of the Canadian Forces in an exchange program with Britain, some of them playing key leadership roles in divisions ordered to the gulf. Canadian Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Scantland said those officers have been given “blanket authority” to deploy.

Is the minister saying there are no rules of engagement for these Canadian soldiers in the gulf, poised for combat, or was he misinforming the House yesterday?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I was not misinforming the House in the least. The right hon. member asked about rules of engagement for a hypothetical Canadian contribution to a hypothetical war. With those two hypotheticals, there are no rules of engagement.

Canadian troops that are currently operating in the region have very well defined, very clear rules of engagement, but it would not be in the interests of national security for me to reveal those rules of engagement to the general public.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein certainly is not hypothetical, and the trouble he has caused is not either. This Liberal government sticks its head in the sand when it should draw a line in the sand regarding Saddam Hussein. He responds only when faced with the threat of grave military consequences.

If we want a peaceful solution, Canada must be proactive and help build international pressure for Saddam to disarm. We are running out of time to take that stand.

Why is the government shirking its responsibility to help our allies prevent war?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have done nothing but push our allies in the direction of making sure that we are strengthening the single most important institution that will be the bulwark for world peace for generations to come, and that is the United Nations Security Council, which the Prime Minister has been supporting since August when he spoke to President Bush. It has been our consistent policy. There is nothing on this side of the House except that which we can take pride in, guaranteeing the preservation and in fact the strengthening of international institutions for the benefit of all the world.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, except for those who go on private visits and say how charming they are.

A coalition of nations is already sending troops to the Persian Gulf region to pressure Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolution 1441. Canada is conspicuous by its absence. Once again the government gets on the fence when it could take concrete action to help reach a peaceful solution.

Again the question is, and we need an answer, when will the government join our allies to pre-deploy forces to prevent a war?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when asked about the issue of military deployment in the Persian Gulf the Leader of the Opposition said “Well, you cross these bridges when you come to them”.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we voted on the Kyoto protocol, the Prime Minister said that it was a vote that would be binding on the government. He made a similar statement regarding his party financing legislation.

Does the Prime Minister agree that sending troops to war is an equally important issue and that, as such, it deserves to be dealt with in the same fashion as Kyoto, that is by having a vote in the House that will be binding on the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, that question was put yesterday by a colleague of the hon. member. Surely she must know, since she is a member of this House, what the rules are regarding such debates. These rules were established a long time ago. Incidentally, there will be such a debate this evening, and there may be more in the future, given the degree of interest generated by this issue. The way to proceed is determined by the parliamentary rules under which this House operates.