Lost her last election, in 2006, with 39% of the vote.
Iraq April 11th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is becoming repetitive. We have been in touch. I have informed the opposition, as has my minister, as has the Deputy Prime Minister, that our relations are such that there is a very good dialogue and communication. We are offering, through our humanitarian commitment, $100 million. We are ready and willing to participate. All of the players involved realize that and will be looking to Canada for our expertise.
Iraq April 11th, 2003
I beg to differ, Mr. Speaker. President Bush has made it eminently clear that he sees a role for the United Nations in the reconstruction of Iraq. He has made it clear that there is an international community responding to a post-war conflict. Our reputation is clear. Our position and experience in this area are very well known. As I have said, our government and our major ministers of course have been involved with their counterparts on a daily basis.
Iraq April 11th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, we are in close contact, as the minister said yesterday, with American and British authorities and many others, including the United Nations, to discuss and help in the reconstruction of Iraq. This has been repeated a number of times. Frankly, it is somewhat difficult to understand this whole new focus on the part of the Alliance Party on humanitarian aid and reconstruction, this big switch from guns to ploughshares, but we are working--
Situation in Iraq April 8th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member make reference to the fact the Prime Minister did not in his remarks today convey our very firm conviction that the United Nations must indeed be a part of reconstruction. I did not have time to get it but I can offer to read it to him afterwards and look forward to doing that.
He made it very clear that Canada is in support and in discussion right now with the United States, the U.K., the United Nations and other multilateral groups with regard to what we and others intend to do on reconstruction. That is key.
Knowing the hon. member as I do, I am sure he most likely omitted to mention it or perhaps was not in the House for that reference.
Situation in Iraq April 8th, 2003
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's statement in the House this morning made eminently clear once again the principles underlying the government's decision not to join the coalition in the war in Iraq, not to participate in the military intervention.
We worked through the United Nations to achieve the goals we share with our friends and allies. Those goals were also very clear, as the Prime Minister mentioned this morning: to disarm Saddam Hussein; to strengthen the international rule of law and human rights; and, equally important, to work toward enduring peace in the region.
Canada worked very hard to achieve a consensus in the Security Council and we were disappointed indeed when that consensus could not, despite all best efforts by ourselves and other allies, be achieved. We argued that a multilateral approach through the United Nations was the necessary approach to enhance the international legitimacy of our military action. In addition, the multilateral approach would make the post-war aftermath easier to resolve.
As the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and others on this side of the House have said, that decision, this decision and the one we had to take, was not an easy one. It would have been easier to agree with close friends.
The reference has been made to our being family in North America, and indeed we are. Like many in this House, I had great-aunts and great-uncles in Boston, which was typical of the Irish immigration that settled in both Nova Scotia and the New England states. I am one of many in this regard.
But even family members do not always agree. One must adhere to the principles integral to our view of a rules based system of international affairs. The course of action we chose must personify the values of this country and the people of Canada, and our strong commitment to the multilateral approach to the resolution of global problems has formed the underpinnings of our foreign policy for many decades.
In the face of global terrorism, it becomes all the more vital as the sole method by which peace loving nations can develop the strategies requisite to defeat those who would destroy democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights for which we all stand.
While we chose a different path, I was, like so many of my colleagues, extremely uncomfortable with the comments of a few. They were injudicious, to say the very least, and they did not, nor do they, reflect the views of this House. Nor do they reflect the opinions of this government.
The opposition's desire to continue to beat this dead horse is generating the media coverage they want and sending the very wrong impression that the views of a couple of members are prevalent throughout. The very opposite is the truth, but for the entire government to apologize, which is the opposition's suggestion, would mean, in the words of a wise pundit, that the sensible are carrying the can for the silly.
If I can move from the ridiculous to the sublime, the question of reconstruction in post-war Iraq, which the Prime Minister addressed this morning, is critical. Canada is working now with the United States and the United Kingdom as well as the United Nations and other multilateral organizations to plan at this moment how to help the Iraqi people after the war ends. We agree with Prime Minister Blair, as the Prime Minister noted, that the United Nations has to be closely involved in the reconstruction, but of course the United Nations cannot do it alone.
Canada is ready now to participate and has the expertise to do so. We have been involved in ongoing relations between government departments in matters of policing and building infrastructure. We have done this in peacetime. It has given us an expertise which is frequently reached for by other countries. We are very comfortable with moving forward in the aftermath of a military intervention such as the one we will face.
Just at the end of his speech, one that made me very proud as a backbencher, the Prime Minister mentioned the values that we share in Canada and he said that when those values are shared across the world it will bring us to a level of understanding of the differences in races, colours and religions that right now is not the status quo. Because we have the ability to do that, we will be able to export our ability to share our differences and to do so in multilateral settings. While we Canadians are always renowned for our humility and not at any time for being aggressive in attempting to export our values, I still think his touching on that this morning was very important, because those values of tolerance and living with differences are exactly what will be required as we move forward into post-war Iraq.
Supply April 3rd, 2003
Madam Speaker, as always, listening to the hon. member in a debate is mind-blowing, and this one met the bar completely. I thank him for the wisdom he shares with the House.
I cannot comment on all the 11 items that he articulated but I do have two things to ask him.
First, had we been able to deflect the negativism of Russia and France, vis-à-vis continued relations with Iraq and therefore been able to set up a tribunal similar to Rwanda, does the hon. member think that the sheer logistics of that might not still have been daunting?
Second, I would ask him to comment on his thesis for reform of the Security Council and the United Nations with which I concur. I was utterly dismayed when on a recent visit we met with the committee responsible for looking into the reform of the Security Council. The committee had been about its task for eight years, and I found that rather discouraging.
Perhaps he could share a few more enlightening comments with the House.
Supply April 3rd, 2003
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.
Iraq April 3rd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that we will participate in post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq. No decisions have yet been made on the specifics but Canada will indeed be involved. We have considerable expertise in that regard and we are ready to help in coordination with our international partners, including the United Nations.
Supply April 3rd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the House is faced with a serious and wide ranging resolution.
Allow me to begin by saying that there is much in this resolution with which we can agree.
Above all, we believe that the relationship between Canada and the United States is strong and comprehensive. We continue to consult closely on a broad range of foreign policy issues. We remain one of the United States' most important allies at home and abroad. We are each other's largest customers and biggest suppliers.
The government has invested carefully in this critical bilateral relationship. We have taken strong action to ensure the prosperity and security of North America. We are committed to continental security in NORAD, to making our border smarter and to improving security within Canada.
We are also partners with the United States in global security. Canada has made significant contributions to the fight against terrorism. We stand together with the U.S. as the western cornerstone of the trans-Atlantic security relationship. Today the Minister of Foreign Affairs is helping to strengthen that relationship in Brussels, where he is meeting his counterparts from all the NATO and EU states.
As we will hear from other members on this side of the House, the ties between our two countries are strong and they are mutually advantageous. They are reinforced by the excellent personal links that we share at all levels and by the many common values that bind our countries together.
This too is the case with respect to Iraq. Although Canada is not participating in military action, we share the goal of Iraq's complete disarmament in accordance with its international obligations. For over a decade the world tried to convince Iraq to live up to the disarmament obligations of the Security Council. Following the end of the gulf war in 1991, seven years of inspection showed beyond any doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime had been developing chemical, biological and nuclear arms and the means to deliver such weapons. The UN concluded that its inspectors had been unable to complete their work prior to their withdrawal from Iraq in 1998.
These are facts, not speculation. The world agreed that Iraq's quest for weapons of mass destruction was real, that it posed a serious threat and that it must end. Throughout this period, Canada consistently called for Iraq's disarmament in accordance with UN resolutions. For this reason, we supported the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441. We called on Iraq to comply fully, without any conditions and with no delay, with the spirit and with the letter of that resolution. Canada offered its full support to the UN and International Atomic Energy Agency inspection teams. We also made it clear that should Iraq fail to comply the Security Council should live up to its responsibilities and determine an appropriate course of action.
Over the course of the winter, Canada made a very serious effort to preserve unity at the United Nations Security Council. We did so despite the fact that we currently are not a member of the council. We were therefore extremely disappointed that the Security Council could not reach consensus on how best to bring about Iraq's disarmament.
We are not indifferent to the outcome of this conflict. We all hope that the U.S. led coalition will achieve a rapid and successful victory with a minimum of casualities. We are deeply concerned about the plight of Iraqi civilians who too often have been used by Iraq's regime for its own purposes.
Our thoughts are also with the servicemen and servicewomen at this time. We share their goal of bringing about Iraq's disarmament, a goal that has been at the very heart of Canada's policy from the very beginning.
Let me conclude this point by noting that while Canada has never made regime change part of our policy toward Iraq, we have no illusions about the nature of the repressive and brutal government of Saddam Hussein. For the past quarter century he has ruled Iraq with an iron fist. He has killed thousands of Iraqi Kurds using chemical weapons, and he has deployed the same banned armaments against Iranian troops. He invaded Kuwait and Iran. He fired missiles against the cities of neighbouring countries, resulting in civilian deaths. We are all aware that these are well documented facts and the government has consistently condemned Iraq's internal brutality and external menace.
The issue now, though, is how best to alleviate human suffering in Iraq. The Prime Minister has said that Canada will provide humanitarian assistance and participate in Iraq's reconstruction. With our contribution of $100 million, we will continue this nation's proud tradition of providing humanitarian assistance in times of conflict and times of crisis.
Through CIDA, Canada will do its part to provide war-affected people with access to clean water and proper sanitation, food, shelter and primary health services. We have provided an immediate allocation of $20 million to assist the UN humanitarian agencies, the Red Crescent society and CARE Canada. This contribution will help provide protection, medical care and material assistance to victims of the conflict within Iraq, assistance to Iraqi refugees fleeing to neighbouring countries, and support for a very important emergency water supply initiative in urban areas in Iraq.
Canada is monitoring the situation very closely. We are in regular contact with our partners and our missions in the region so that we can work quickly and respond to humanitarian needs.
The commitment of $100 million, which includes a recent investment of $5.6 million to help UN agencies plan the relief effort, builds on previous Canadian contributions. Since 1990, CIDA has provided over $40 million in humanitarian assistance to alleviate the suffering of victims of conflict in Iraq.
To conclude, the government's policy is clear. Canada has a strong and vital relationship with the United States. We share the goal of seeing Iraq's disarmament in compliance with its international obligations. We hope for a rapid end to this war with a minimum of casualties on both sides. We call on all parties to this conflict to respect international humanitarian law and the Geneva conventions, including the protection of prisoners of war. Finally, Canada, as I have said, is providing humanitarian assistance and we stand ready to support Iraq's reconstruction and its reintegration into the community of nations.
Supply April 3rd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I can only assume the hon. member across, with his concluding comments, was unable to avail himself of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech this morning. It was excellent and one wherein he itemized very carefully the tremendous support this country had been providing in the war on terrorism.
In quoting him, I also want to recognize with pride the 30-plus Canadian soldiers currently on exchange with the U.K. and U.S. armies, some of whom are known to be deployed in the Iraq theatre right now. We back our conviction that the Canadian ships continue their mission in creating passages of safety in the Arabian Gulf for all who legitimately pass through there, including U.S. ships.
Again and again, the commitment this country has made to its allies, our redeployment in Afghanistan, shows a tremendous ongoing allied relationship between us and the United States and Britain. As has been said so many times, the kind of inference, the kind of remarks that have been a part of the conclusion of the member's speech are so unhelpful. I would caution members to think about those things.