House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 56% of the vote.
Iraq April 10th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, that is another piece of convoluted logic.
The member refers to the bombing in 1998, but the point I made is that this agreement was established in 1988, 10 years earlier and long before the first gulf war, even by the calculations of the Canadian Alliance.
Iraq April 10th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member is chasing after red herrings.
The special duty area was created in 1988, if the member wants to know the facts of the matter, which is before the first gulf conflict.
In any event, none of that is at all to the point. The central point, as I have said many times, is that all of the people, the exchange officers in Iraq, get precisely the same benefits today as they would had Canada decided to participate in the war. That is the critical point.
Iraq April 10th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I said in the House yesterday when asked this question, that the House had already passed the motion urging the government that if Saddam Hussein or other people in his regime were captured, they should be turned over to an international court and brought to justice.
I said that precise answer yesterday and that remains my answer today.
Iraq April 10th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, as I have explained very clearly in the House several times, there are two missions going on in the gulf. There is the war against terrorism in which Canada is proud to be involved. There is the war against Iraq in which Canada is not involved.
It is for this reason that in the event that an Iraqi soldier or member of the regime is captured, a very unlikely event given the state of that regime and the fact that our ships are hundreds of miles away, in that highly hypothetical situation, the navy has instructions to call back to Ottawa and we will consider the case.
Iraq April 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I just said in my answer to the previous question, I will have to get back to the hon. member on the specifics of that case and I will do just that.
Iraq April 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I will have to get back to the hon. member on the specifics of that case.
What I can confirm in the House and as I have said before, if the navy suspects that any ship carrying whatever flag might be carrying mines, let alone chemical weapons, that could put in harm's way any of our allies, the navy will board that ship to prevent any damage taking place to the ships of any of our allies.
That is what it has been doing and that remains the position of the government.
Iraq April 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the member may be aware that the House passed a resolution stating that the government should endorse international efforts to bring to justice Saddam Hussein and the other Iraqi officials responsible for these crimes.
Second, he should understand that it is a supremely hypothetical question in that the navy of Saddam Hussein was never much. It has virtually ceased to exist. Our ships are hundreds of miles away. The odds of this happening are extraordinarily low, and I can only conclude that this is the mother of all hypothetical questions.
Iraq April 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is yesterday's question, because I just answered in light of the situation today, to the effect that it has now become very clear that Canada is not now, nor has it ever been, involved in the war on Iraq.
Therefore, the whole argument of the Bloc Quebecois has disappeared, and the question for today is not the question he just asked.
Iraq April 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, what the Bloc Quebecois has never understood—but now we have the commodore and the American general to back this up—is that there are two separate missions. Canada is involved in the war against terrorism; Canada is not involved in the war against Iraq.
Now, with verification of this by the commodore and by the American general, the Bloc Quebecois should finally get it, after all these weeks.
Iraq April 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the statement by the commodore indicates that he is doing an excellent job for Canada and that, contrary to what the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party believe, there are two separate missions. That is what his words indicate.
If the Bloc does not understand that, let me quote an American. When asked by a Canadian reporter why would this key task force remain under American command, Brigadier General Brooks responded, “It's a different coalition and a different operation, and we always respect the prerogatives of countries involved”.