Debates of April 3rd, 2003

Supply

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

I answered the member's question fully. I said I am a friend of the member for LaSalle--Émard. He is a good member of Parliament, but he should get in here and tell us what he thinks.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I was concerned when I heard the member stand in his place and say that the leader of the New Democratic Party was expressing anti-American sentiments.

I ask the member to listen to precisely what has been said in the debate today on behalf of our leader and on behalf of our party which is that we are speaking in solidarity with a large number of Americans who absolutely oppose the Bush-led war. I ask the member to listen and if he will not listen to us, then he should consult directly with the many members of the American Congress and Senate who have clearly said that to be anti-war is not to be anti-American.

Can the member not understand that to not support a U.S.-led war in Iraq is a stand for multilateralism and one which the Government of Canada has a perfect right to take? Our concern is that the government tends to speak out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to what it actually does--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time has run out.

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

Madam Speaker, I respect the hon. member who just asked the question. I respect the things she has done in the House over the years.

However I do not respect her new leader, who is not in the House, who will stand next to somebody who is burning the American flag. That to me is anti-American. That is not good for Canada. It is not good for this Parliament. I do not respect her new leader who would lead parades where people burn American flags and curse President Bush.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do apologize for my enthusiasm to intervene in what is a total misrepresentation of reality. The fact of the matter is--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order. That is a matter for debate and is not a point of order.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I had an opportunity to visit Mexico City with the Prime Minister about a month and a half ago. On the issue of war in Iraq, one of the Mexican deputies had a very interesting perception and I would like to repeat that for the House. He said that on the one hand was the evil of war and that on the other hand was the evil of Saddam Hussein. He said that he anguished with those leaders in the world who had to make a decision on which was the greater evil. This came from a Mexican deputy who is a pacifist.

The army in Mexico cannot by constitution leave the country. The country is pacifist. It was a very interesting insight on difficult decisions made by international leaders.

As a pacifist myself, as someone who treated the results of war in my surgical practice, someone who saw the results that lasted a lifetime, I found myself in the same position, talking about the evils of war and the evils of Saddam Hussein.

The debate today is not actually about whether or not the war is right or wrong. It frankly is about comments that have been made by senior Canadian officials who are anti-American. We are asking for an apology from the Canadian government for those statements. We are asking that in a formal manner.

I have a personal connection to this issue. I have a couple of sons who are currently studying and working in the United States. Paul, a young married man, is studying to become a fireman/paramedic and my other son, who is a bit younger, Peter, is studying to be an airline pilot. They are both in Provo, Utah. I had an occasion to visit them a very short time ago. The one son is going on a mission and I went to be part of a special ceremony. The question they asked me was what was happening back home in Canada. They said that the statements that were being made by senior people were being portrayed as the position that Canada has taken. They said to me, a statement that I have heard more times in the past month or so than I have ever heard in my life, that they were almost embarrassed to say they were Canadians.

I have had more constituents, more e-mails and more phone calls say that they are embarrassed to be Canadians. I believe this is fixable. How have my constituents reacted to the anti-American sentiments? Here I would like to mention Richard and Doreen Wambeke, and Dr. Calvin Booker. I have permission to mention them here in the House today. These are ordinary people; a rancher, a guy who said that he just did not understand how Canada could say that the U.S. has been our strongest and best ally and yet say those things that have been so hurtful.

They asked me what they could do. They set up a website, www.wesupporttheusa.com. A little advertising went around, a few interviews were held and these average Canadians from High River and Okotoks have had, as of today, 205,000 visitors to their website and 102,000 have signed a petition. They ran an $18,000 ad in USA Today , and that ad said, what I think we should be saying in the House, that we support the U.S. in the war in Iraq.

What could the Prime Minister have said so that he could have said that in good conscience and not actually participated in the war in Iraq? I respect the position of the Prime Minister when he says that he thinks we should step aside.

However, here is what he could have said: We support our allies now that they have decided to do what they have to do to stop Saddam Hussein, the tyrant. We do not have enough extra military to send a force but we will be sending some troops to Afghanistan to relieve the marines and let them go to Iraq and we will be in the background with our frigates, with our helicopters and with the AWACS support. That is what he could have said and that is what he should have said but he chose to say that the war was not justified. Having said that, he moved off to say that he thought Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. He was on both sides of the issue.

I came up with some other interesting quotes. Here is one from someone who the Liberals generally love, Justin Trudeau. He said “Canada must stand strong behind its closest friend”.

This is what Ernie Eves said:

I think it is important for our American friends south of the border to know that not all Canadians have taken the position that the Prime Minister and his government have taken. The United States is our long-time ally for many decades. We have the longest undefended border between the two countries in the entire world...I believe we should be there for them when they need us in their time of need.

Now, on the insults. The Prime Minister could have and should have distanced himself publicly from those insults, those hurtful comments. However, because I do not like to repeat insults and give them credence, I will only refer obliquely to probably the worst one that was made by the member for Oakville when she compared the attack on Iraq with the attack on Pearl Harbor, saying that this would have to rewrite history so Pearl Harbor would no longer be described as an atrocity. There is her connection. She connected Pearl Harbor and the events there with a pre-emptive strike in Iraq by the allies.

The Prime Minister did not distance himself from the insults publicly. He says that he did it behind closed doors in his caucus. However here is his opportunity, the opportunity for the members of the Liberal Party opposite and other members in this House, to distance themselves from those insulting comments.

Finally, where is the member for LaSalle—Émard on those insulting comments? His opportunity will be to come into the House on Tuesday next at the close of business for the House of Commons when we will have a vote on whether or not it is acceptable to insult our closest ally.

The Alliance position is that our closest ally should have and could have been supported but that did not take place. This is a choice opportunity for the member for LaSalle—Émard, the current Prime Minister of Canada and every Liberal member of Parliament to stand and say to the Canadian public, “We have been misunderstood. The occasional comment made inappropriately was just that, inappropriate. We apologize, we make amends for and we will not allow, again, statements of that kind”.

How will they vote? The Canadian public await that vote Tuesday night at the close of business. I can tell the House that I will be voting for an apology from every individual who made those hurtful comments.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, again I am somewhat confused as to why the member is so preoccupied with how one member of the House feels. That is a question that is not before this place, yet it shows that the member is perhaps not as committed to the issues before this place.

I know the member has been a House leader of his party in the past. We have an opposition motion before us, which in fact is four motions. One is with regard to comments made by certain persons. One is with regard to reaffirming that the United States is our closest friend and ally. The third one is to hope that the U.S. coalition is successful in removing the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. The final one is that the Government of Canada assist the coalition in the reconstruction of Iraq. Those are four separate and distinct questions.

I agree with three of them but I have a problem with regard to a position that Canada should support the overthrow of a dictatorship that is stated in this motion. That is not our policy. That is not the UN policy. For that reason, the government has not supported participation in that coalition.

If the member is sincere about knowing the actual views of all parliamentarians here, on a person by person basis, would he seek the consent of his party to split the motion into four and allow us to vote on each of the distinct elements so that, not only this member but also all members in the House, indeed all Canadians and all Americans will truly understand how we feel about each of these items?

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the member. I have never been the House leader of the party and have never even been close to the House leader of the party. I do sit fairly close to the current House leader and maybe by osmosis I would get his thoughts.

The member, first off, commented about why I would be concerned about the member for LaSalle—Émard. Let me explain very carefully why I am concerned. I look for his comments on hurtful, abusive comments toward our American neighbours. However he has never made a comment that would suggest to me where, why or how he thinks about those comments, which is why I asked that question. He expects and hopes to be prime minister of the country. Would he accept hurtful comments like that?

The member says that he supports 75% of the motion and would like to have each individual clause split out. He did not mention too clearly where he stood on the issue that I spent my time on, the insults, for surely that is the essence of the motion.

I honestly have been able to find something in any motion that I could vote against. The main component of this motion, which Canadians understand, is are hurtful comments acceptable or not. The member will have an opportunity to vote yes or no.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke cited a conversation, which I am sure took place, in Mexico when the Prime Minister made a state visit recently. He and I both were part of that delegation. He suggested that one of the elected Mexican officials said that he could identify with the anguish of world leaders who had to choose between the evils of Saddam Hussein and the evils of war.

I would like some clarification from the hon. member, because I am sure it is not his aim whatsoever to leave a wrong impression. Would the member not agree that in fact this was a false choice, that there was another choice available, which was to continue, through the United Nations, a peaceful process of orderly disarmament of the Iraqi regime?

Second, would he confirm that it was literally a unanimous decision of the members of the Mexican congress and a unanimous decision of the Mexican senate to stand behind the Mexican president in maintaining its opposition to the Iraqi war?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Unfortunately we have run out of time again, but I will permit the hon. member for Macleod to answer, quickly, please.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is accurate that the member, in anguishing over this decision, did talk about two evils. The member says that there is another option. The member looked upon the 10 years of diplomatic process through the United Nations as having failed. I actually accept the fact that there is another alternative, a diplomatic effort. If the member thinks that 10 years of diplomatic process is not sufficient to demonstrate whether or not there was, on the tyrant's side, a recommendation that this be followed, sometimes we cannot reason with the tyrant. I wish I had more time. I will leave it there.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the very distinguished member for Mississauga South.

I wish to speak briefly on the second part of the motion before the House, that regarding the close relationship between Canada and the United States. I do not think there is any doubt in the House that the United States is Canada's most important ally, because while geography has made us neighbours and trade certainly has made us important partners, a history over many years has made our two nations friends.

Much of our common history is based on our solid defence relations and our shared goal of international peace and security.

Defence relations between Canada and the United States go back to the beginning of the second world war.

In 1940, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister King signed the Ogdensburg agreement, which acknowledged the indivisible nature of North America's security and pledged mutual assistance in the event of hostilities. The Ogdensburg agreement led to the creation of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence, which is our highest level bilateral defence forum for discussing matters of North American security. Since its two chairmen report directly to the President of the United States and the Prime Minister, defence issues are discussed at the highest levels in both the military and diplomatic communities.

Our defence relations with the United States are based on over 80 treaties, more than 250 statements of understanding and some 145 bilateral forums in which defence issues are debated. Those documents are not mere pieces of paper. They are the basis for our cooperation.

As members know, the most visible aspect of the Canada-U.S. defence relationship is of course the binational North American aerospace defence agreement, NORAD. Since NORAD was created in 1958, we have been working side by side with the Americans to protect the skies over our continent. NORAD still is one of the most dynamic organizations we have. For example, over the past two years it has broadened its focus to respond to the changing threats to North America. In this regard, I can assure members that it will remain a fundamental pillar of Canada-U.S. defence co-operation.

There are numerous other less visible aspects of the defence relationship such as, for example, our co-operation in testing and evaluating new equipment or in the training of military personnel. In fact, we have access to many U.S. testing facilities that would otherwise be impossible for us to afford. Canadian personnel also train side by side with the American forces. This not only ensures that our two militaries can operate side by side when called upon to do so, but it increases our operational effectiveness.

Since September 11, Canada and the United States have been discussing various ways to strengthen and increase cooperation and military assistance in case of terrorist attacks in North America.

Just last December we announced the creation of a binational planning group. This group will conduct surveillance, share intelligence, provide our governments with attack warning and threat assessments, and validate plans for potential maritime, land and civil responses. This group is located within NORAD headquarters and is led by a Canadian, Lieutenant-General Ken Pennie. It is important that in addition to our bilateral defence relationship we will significantly enhance the ability of our countries to work together in case of emergency.

The close defence relationship between Canada and the United States does not express itself only at the institutional level. Our two countries also co-operate in the field. Canadian and American troops operated side by side in Afghanistan as part of the campaign against international terrorism. Just to give an example, the Canadian Forces provided security to U.S. troops in Kandahar and closely worked with American forces to destroy residual Taliban and al-Qaeda forces, and may I say that the Americans were very grateful for the quality of our contribution in Afghanistan. I had the privilege of going to Afghanistan with the Minister of National Defence last summer and heard firsthand from senior American officers in Kandahar about the remarkable work done by the Canadian Forces.

The Canadian navy is also the only navy in the world to be able to completely incorporate some of its ships into American maritime groups. Canada and the United States are thus able to carry out joint sea denial operations in the Persian Gulf. U.S. ships are currently part of a multinational naval force under Canadian command.

Lastly, Canadian pilots and surveillance officers are working closely with the Americans taking part in Operation Noble Eagle. That operation was launched following September 11 to protect the airspace over North America.

The second part of today's motion asks the House to reaffirm that the United States continues to be Canada's closest friend and ally. I have no hesitation in doing so. The links between our two countries in the fields of defence, in particular, and security are deep, they are strong, and they remain secure.

Canada and the United States have many international objectives in common, objectives such as international peace and stability, democracy, free trade and the rule of law, but as independent countries we sometimes disagree on how to achieve them. And we may well have disagreements in the future. I can assure members of the House that these disagreements will not compromise the very strong relationship our two countries have developed over decades.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I listened to the member's speech it really did my heart good to hear a member from the government side recognize that we do have close ties with the Americans, particularly in regard to self-defence and these terrorist times.

I have to remind the member that after September 11 a number of names came to the CSIS organizations and to the government with regard to terrorist activities and fundraising activities here in Canada. The minister at that time said that we did not have that problem in Canada, yet today the government came up with another seven names and now we are up to 26 organizations. The Americans had great concerns about this, as the hon. member must know.

Since our situation with the Americans in regard to the war in Iraq, the member must also know that most of our intelligence here in Canada comes from British and American intelligence. We know that CSIS only performs here in Canada, so we rely upon these different organizations around the world to also supply us with intelligence information. Does it not concern the hon. member that maybe we have been cut off from that information due to our stand and our disagreements with the Americans?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will answer the question very directly. No, it does not concern me at all because we have not been cut off from access to important intelligence from our allies. What does concern me is the continual push from members of the Alliance to have the Solicitor General and the government list groups or entities based on knee-jerk political reaction.

As the Solicitor General has indicated in the House many times, and I think very persuasively, the decision to list entities is based on a careful analysis of criminal intelligence information which we have access to, both Canadian criminal intelligence information and also that of the very effective and very robust relationship between our intelligence community and that of our allies. That process continues.

What I find disturbing is that some members think the listing of groups should be made based on headlines or on rather exaggerated political rhetoric. We base it on intelligence and we have access to the best intelligence in the world.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it was really interesting to listen to my colleague speak about the interoperability and the integration that has taken place between our armed forces, which bespeaks something very important that maybe gets lost in a debate like this. I have made mention of how vital the relationships are between the Deputy Prime Minister and Tom Ridge and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his counterpart, Secretary of State Powell. Those kinds of relationships forge something that all the rhetoric in the world cannot tear apart.

I think my colleague has made mention of the kinds of relationships that get forged when our army and the American army do exercises together in Oromocto, New Brunswick, perhaps, or when we can give them the opportunity for winter training and they can give us the opportunity for summer and therefore desert-like training. This is when regular people like us are working in tight situations, in heavy duty training situations. I wonder if the member thinks that spills into our debate today.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is absolutely correct. The relationship between our two countries is based on decades of co-operation, certainly on economic co-operation, and co-operation in national defence. I have outlined some of the many important areas such as trade co-operation and co-operation in various international organizations and groups. The list is long.

She referred to training exercises that increase the interoperability of our forces, which is something that on this side of the House we are very proud of. I referred briefly to my visit to Afghanistan with the Minister of Defence a year and a half ago. We had a chance to meet with American military leaders. A general commanding the marine group in Kandahar was full of praise for the work our soldiers have done and thanked Canada for our continuing commitment to that operation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity that the motion brings to the House. It allows members to comment on a wide range of issues, but all somewhat related to the situation in Iraq. I do not think that there is anyone in this place who does not care deeply for the brave military personnel who are there in the defence of democracy and freedom, and in the effort to liberate the Iraqi people so that they can enjoy the same rights and freedoms that we enjoy in Canada and in other countries around the world.

Today's motion is actually four motions on four distinct issues and each of these issues can stand alone. The first item is in regard to comments made by four individuals who were specifically named. Three are parliamentarians and one is a former officer in the government.

All members have an opinion on this and I would think that a large proportion of members, if not unanimously, would express their regret for those statements being made. They were in some cases intemperate and inappropriate. We should all be careful during these delicate times. We are talking about a time when there is a war going on and the horrors of war continue to accumulate day after day. This is not a time for cheap politics or throwaway rhetoric. This is a time for diplomacy, wisdom and responsible commentary on the values that we share collectively with the Iraqi people.

The first issue in the motion is appropriate. There is no question in my mind that that aspect of this compound motion would definitely pass in this place.

The second aspect deals with reaffirming our mutual respect and friendship with the United States. Again, there is no disagreement in this place, within the government, the other parties or within Canada. That part of this compound motion would pass.

The third item deals with a hope that the U.S.-led coalition be successful in removing Saddam Hussein's regime of power. This has been a matter of serious debate not only in this place, but initially as part of UN resolution 1441 which was about whether or not there was authorization for war, and whether there was UN Security Council authorization for removing a dictator. Does that not set a precedent that free countries could go and begin to eliminate all dictators around the world? It is a very slippery slope.

Our policy has a history to it. It has a foundation and a basis that is clear and has been established over a long period of time. For that reason, we are not specifically participating in a conflict which is there ostensibly to remove a dictatorial regime. I am not sure how a vote on this part of the motion would come out. Everybody would say that they wished there was no war, that they wished there was a diplomatic and peaceful solution to these matters, but a vote in this place with regard to the conflict and participation in the conflict, or our support in principle for what is happening, would be more problematic. Members would want to consider carefully their positions, each and every one, and I am not sure of the outcome of that vote.

The final item is that the House urge the Government of Canada to assist the coalition in the reconstruction of Iraq. It is unnecessary to include that in the motion. Canada has already contributed $100 million to the Iraqi relief effort for the innocent people of Iraq who are in harm's way due to the conflict.

We have four motions. One is self-evident and the results on two motions are obvious on face value. Then we get down to the one which is the principal issue. The principal issue is that the Government of Canada has taken a stand on this based on its longstanding foreign policy and its support for the United Nations and the Security Council positions.

Given that that is the case, I would assume all hon. members would want to be absolutely sure that their views on each and every one of these items was clear and unequivocal, and that they would be prepared to stand in their place on these matters to ensure that there was no confusion. I am sure that members on all sides of the House would want to ensure that not only would each member have the opportunity to express their views on each and every one of these items, but that the result of their position was clearly known to their constituents, to other members in this place, to all Canadians, and indeed to our American colleagues.

If it is the will of the House for members to express themselves in good faith on these four diverse questions, we have a challenge before us now. It is important that we not obfuscate the issues in a way in which I believe they are moving.

It is dangerous to proceed with a motion which, if, for instance, the House were to vote on and say yes, would then be an opportunity for some to say, for cheap political opportunism, that the member voted yes to the motion but no to the war. We would have to go to war and that would be a contradiction.

If members were to vote no, saying that they do not support the motion, then some who want to make political hay out of it would say that we do not mind people saying those intemperate things about Americans and about the President of the United States. This is not a win-win situation.

In the tradition of this place where all hon. members would want to ensure that there is true, full and plain communication to all members, Canadians, and Americans, in fact, all interested parties, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to split the motion into its four component parts.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the movers of the motion did not support it. I alert the House, Canadians, and our friends in America that the results of the vote will not be clear simply because the question is compound and not clear.

As a member from the wonderful city of Mississauga I am a neighbour to one of the ridings the member of which is party to one of the areas in which the House is expressing concern. It means that I have received an inordinate amount of communication on this. I want to be very clear to my constituents and to those people who have expressed concern about commentary that was made by a particular member. I disassociate myself with the remarks of that member. They were inappropriate and incorrect. I unequivocally apologize that those remarks were made.

Many of my constituents, corporations, economic interests, and the Mississauga Board of Trade, to whom I spoke two Fridays ago, expressed their concerns to me. I share their real legitimate concerns that economic impacts are possible. They are possible if there is this ongoing appearance of remarks which would be characterized as anti-American.

I wish to assure them that on this side we will continue to work as hard as we can to ensure the free flow of trade between Canada and the U.S. and to continue to build our wonderful friendship with the United States.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member from the other side and understand that he has some reservations regarding part of the motion that says:

...hope that the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is successful in removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power;

I want the hon. member to understand that no one wanted to see a war take place, but we must admit that it has happened. All we are saying is that it has happened, we are not going to stop it, so at least we should support our allies in that regard. Does the member understand what I am saying?

Yet, the member still says that he has a problem with that part of the motion. I cannot disagree more strongly with the member on the argument that he put forward about his concerns. The conflict has started. There is nothing the hon. member can do. There is nothing this side of the House can do. There is nothing we can do to stop it. We should now at least show support and hope that our allies are successful in achieving their goal.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard is an important member of this place. He has done a tremendous service to his country in representing his riding as a member of cabinet and finance minister. His position is of great interest to many people. The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, in response to the very question that the member just asked, said clearly that in these delicate matters Canada must speak with one voice, and that is the Prime Minister.

The question that the member asked is, now that the war is going on, why do we not just participate? Let me quote--

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

What about support?