Debates of March 31st, 2003

Iraq

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as a student of Canadian history, I feel justified in saying that I have nothing to learn from the Bloc Quebecois about Canadian history. Its version of Canadian history is not at all the same as mine. I have always answered its questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Iraq conflict began, the Prime Minister assured us that Canada would not be taking part. However, Canada is taking part. Canadian soldiers were not supposed to go to Iraq. But they have. Their role was supposed to be limited to providing support, but some are directly at the front.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, had we been satisfied with his initial answers to our questions, we would be far from knowing the truth about Canadian participation in Iraq?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Bloc Quebecois has forgotten about the participation of France. It has forgotten about France for a few days, although it is true that French ships are there with us. The Bloc has forgotten about France, while Americans are now calling French fries Freedom fries. What does the Bloc want? For Canada to be more French than France? That is not Canada's policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not ask about France, but about the 31 Canadian soldiers currently in Iraq. It is time the minister answered our questions.

There are 31 Canadian soldiers in Iraq. Can the Prime Minister tell us if other Canadian soldiers will be among the additional 120,000 soldiers that the U.S. intends to send to Iraq? Can he confirm that more soldiers will be going? This is what we want to know, not the history of France.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, mentioning France is relevant because that country is fighting terrorism along with Canada. That is the relevancy of what I said and what the Bloc Quebecois always forgets. Canada is an ally of the United States in fighting terrorism. We have been there since the beginning, and we are there now with France and other countries. We are proud of our role in fighting terrorism now when the risks are higher. That is our position, and I am proud of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs accused the opposition of sowing confusion. It seems to me it is the government that is sowing confusion about its own position with respect to the war in Iraq.

We understand, for instance, that troops on exchange in the past did not deploy to the Falkland Islands or to northern Ireland when they were attached to British units that were involved in those areas. We wonder what is the difference now between those conflicts and Iraq? Why is the government complacent about its own rules being broken with respect to the deployment of troops when it comes to the war in Iraq?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, our historians are looking into these matters. We do not have all of this information from years back computerized. There may be cases in which these exchanges did occur in the Falklands or there may not. We are currently looking into it.

As to what may have changed since then, one thing that has changed is September 11. September 11 marked a turning point. From that point we have been shoulder to shoulder with our friends in the United States in the war against terrorism. We are with our friends in that war in the gulf--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, with the other breath the government would argue that September 11 did not change its commitments to multilateralism or to the United Nations. The government cannot have it both ways.

This is not a history project. It is not history 101. The rules are right there, under the Canadian Forces exchange and liaison programs:

Should the host nation become involved in hostilities in which the parent nation is not a party...they shall not engage in combat, enter a combat zone, or deploy with troops--

This is not history. It is the government's own document. Why does he not listen to it?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the document also makes clear that the ultimate control in this matter rests with the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada has discretion over these matters. The Government of Canada, after careful thought and consideration and given the non-direct combat role of our people, given the importance of our alliance with the United States and with other countries, and given the events of September 11 and our total commitment to the war on terrorism, decided our exchange officers would stay where they are.

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Health Canada is encouraging Canadians not to travel to or transit through Hanoi, Hong Kong or Singapore for fear of coming into contact with SARS, yet the government department has not yet established a policy of questioning travellers coming from these SARS trouble spots upon arrival in Canada.

Can the Minister of Health tell the House why that is and at what stage she would be prepared to question or quarantine travellers who present a health threat to Canadians?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are stepping up our surveillance activities as they relate to inbound passengers.

Health Canada has sent staff to Pearson International Airport, Dorval International Airport and Vancouver. We are there to support airport staff. Health professionals have been sent to each airport to help monitor passengers arriving on direct flights from Beijing, Hong Kong and Singapore for flu-like symptoms and to assist those who appear to be ill.

Health alert notices are being provided to incoming passengers arriving from Beijing, Singapore and Hong Kong advising them to see a physician if they begin to--

[The Speaker]

Order. The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

Iraq

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

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

Prime Minister Blair has been to Washington to make the case that reconstruction of Iraq should be led by the United Nations. Australia's foreign minister is on his way there today to make the same case. Canada has finally taken a position in favour of the UN leading reconstruction, yet the Prime Minister has cancelled the Washington trip he was scheduled to make next week.

Why is the Prime Minister not taking the case for the United Nations to Washington himself, or does the government believe that he has no credibility with the U.S. administration?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the Prime Minister was intending to go to Washington to receive an award for his own personal achievements. It was his decision that it was not an appropriate time for him to visit Washington for that purpose, particularly while American men and women are engaged in a war.

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is hardly a surprise he is not welcome.

I want to follow up with the defence minister. The defence minister admits that our military personnel are in Iraq, in the theatre with our allies. He said they are there. Their lives are on the line but they are not combatants. Could he please explain what he means by that policy?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I said they were not direct combatants.

I pleaded at the beginning of question period for at least a temporary downing of partisan tools. The Canadian Alliance would have us send more people than we have into the region. The other opposition parties would have us send fewer people.

Why do we not for a change focus on those who are there? Why do we not behave in a way that would please them and please their families? Why do we not, all of us, stand behind them and say to the Canadian public that we thank them for their service to our country?

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we have been saying we would stand behind our allies and our people and that we would send enough people there with the support of the government so they would not get killed and they would win this war against Saddam.

I want to once again explore what the minister means. We know that these people are in harm's way. We know that indirect combatants can get killed.

Lieutenant-Colonel Ronnie McCourt of the British army was asked whether there were any Canadian soldiers at risk of death or injury. His reply was, “Oh yes, they are in combat”. Is that true or not?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, they are in a situation of combat around them. They themselves are not in direct combat, as I have explained many times.

Sadly, it is a fact of military life that there is always risk to life in whatever we do. The government has the responsibility to manage these risks against a whole number of other considerations. It is a deep responsibility that the government bears, but I am confident that the government has taken its responsibilities and is managing these risks in a prudent and responsible way.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada —and this was made all the more obvious in the exchange that just took place—is in a very peculiar situation where, officially, it is not at war with Iraq, but it has Canadian military personnel who are in a combat situation and who are risking their lives.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs admit that, under the provisions of international law, a country whose soldiers take part in a conflict could be deemed to be a belligerent, even though it is not officially at war?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Defence said, our exchanges with our American colleagues go back a long time. We are not going to put a stop to these exchanges, which are very important to us and which have existed for decades. That tradition must not change. We must continue it with our allies, and we will stay there with our ships and personnel. However, this does not mean that we are at war with Iraq. We said that we advocate another solution.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister, who used to teach international law, knows that there is a difference for the troops who are over there.

Should a Canadian soldier who is part of an American unit be taken prisoner in Iraq, who would officially represent him: Canada or the United States?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we do not want to answer hypothetical questions.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, members of the House who held discussions last week in Washington heard over and over about Americans' feelings of vulnerability and their determination to prevent another terrorist attack.

Our neighbour needs to believe we are doing all we can to know who is coming into Canada, especially those who may wish the U.S. harm.

Over half the asylum seekers to Canada are undocumented, but most are allowed in with little or no checking. Why is this being permitted in such dangerous times?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it is always dangerous to give the impression that all those who come to Canada without documents are potential terrorists.

Having said that, we must ensure that we have preventive measures. This is why, in Canada, certain individuals are kept in custody. However, we must also use discretion. We must be very careful with regard to what the hon. member is proposing.