Joe Clark

[Iraq, March 24th, 2003]

Precisely, Mr. Speaker, and my view of the law on the matter was upheld and repeated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the government on Friday.

The United Nations needs a Security Council resolution to lead reconstruction in Iraq. Last week the Prime Minister wanted to wait until the bombs were dropping before Canada acted. That leaves reconstruction to the Pentagon which is dropping the bombs that the Prime Minister was waiting for. The British are seeking a Security Council resolution and Japan has committed at least $100 million to work under UN auspices.

What is the Prime Minister of Canada waiting for now? Will the government spell out exactly--

[Iraq, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week Iraq fired one, perhaps two, Scud-B missiles at Kuwait. These are missiles which Iraq denied having. Yesterday there were two more discoveries of proscribed weapons: a suspected chemical weapons facility and Russian weapons near Basra.

Does the Government of Canada consider these discoveries to be a further material breach of UN resolutions? Does it consider them to be proof that Saddam deliberately concealed weapons of mass destruction from UN inspectors? Does that evidence change Canada's position not to participate?

[Points of Order, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point of order with respect to an answer given today by the Minister of National Defence and the answers which he gave to me yesterday on the same question.

Yesterday I put the following question to the Minister of National Defence:

Do all Canadian troops on ships in the gulf have gas masks and chemical suits to protect them against potential chemical or biological attacks? Yes or no.

The minister answered that he had already answered the question. Then he went on to say “I do not think it is appropriate for me to deal with such issues in public”, and he offered to meet me privately. That is what he said yesterday.

Today he provided to the House of Commons, in public, the information which he deliberately denied to me yesterday in the House of Commons.

I am raising this for a variety of reasons. First, I am obliged to raise this at the most timely occasion. Second, the issue was obviously one of grave importance. We would not want Canadians in the gulf to be exposed to potential chemical weapons attacks without adequate provision.

My concern is that the minister was trying to hide behind a rule set out in Beauchesne's. I draw your attention to Beauchesne's 6th edition, page 123, citation 416(1) and (2) which says:

(1) A Minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason...

(2) An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon if the answer be refused by the Minister on the ground of the public interest; nor can the question be replaced on the Notice Paper. The refusal of a Minister to answer on this ground cannot be raised as a matter of privilege.

Clearly what the minister was attempting to do yesterday was claiming that this was a matter that could not be responded to on the ground of the public interest.

Yesterday the public interest in his interpretation said he could not reply. Today the public interest in his interpretation said he could reply. I believe that is a breach of the rules of order of the House. We have a right to count upon the veracity and completeness of the answers of ministers in the House.

I would appreciate your judgment on this, Mr. Speaker.

[Iraq, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister sucks and blows at the same time. That means that in his view the vote he cast last night means absolutely nothing at all.

I am pleased to hear that he is finally talking about reconstruction after ignoring that for the first several days of this debate. He knows that the United Nations has authority to deal with humanitarian actions but that it needs a new resolution to deal with reconstruction. Is Canada acting actively to have a new resolution drafted and, more importantly, to build the kind of consensus that would ensure such a resolution would be adopted by the Security Council?

[Iraq, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, before last night the government was able to argue that Canada would not participate in Iraq at this time. Canada was as flexible as France. But the Prime Minister and his government last night voted in favour of a much more categoric resolution that absolutely shuts the door on any subsequent United Nations action. Either that vote means nothing or Canada is not now free to respond to Saddam's use of weapons of mass destruction. Which is it?

[Points of Order, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of discussion of principle today. The Minister of Foreign Affairs took a decision in principle to table the document that was requested. He made a mistake and tabled the wrong document. I want him to honour the principle and table the document that was requested.

[Points of Order, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the document that was sought was not the press release which the Minister of Foreign Affairs is tabling. It was instead the record of the meeting that was referred to in the question by my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester. I am delighted that the minister has agreed to table the document requested. He made a mistake, perhaps, in understanding what was requested, but in carrying out the principle of his agreement to table the document that was requested, I would ask him now to put before the House of Commons the record of the discussion that was requested by the hon. member, and not simply a press release.

[National Defence, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the Minister of National Defence which requires a yes or no answer.

Do all Canadian troops on ships in the gulf have gas masks and chemical suits to protect them against potential chemical or biological attacks? Yes or no.

[Iraq, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, so the Prime Minister has taken a position on principle, he just does not know what the principle is.

Yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs told reporters that Canada was working with the U.S. State Department to determine what would be required to rebuild Iraq.

My question for the Prime Minister is this. In those discussions, is Canada insisting that the United Nations and not the Pentagon lead the reconstruction effort? Could the Prime Minister tell the House what Canada is doing to vest the United Nations with the power to lead the reconstruction effort? I am talking here not just of humanitarian aid but of reconstruction which requires a new mandate.

[Iraq, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has decided that Canada would not commit troops to the war on Iraq, but he remains silent on the legitimacy of the military intervention.

Is it the position of the Government of Canada that the military action taken by the United States, the United Kingdom and others is legitimate under international law?