John McCallum

[National Defence, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence takes its environmental responsibilities extremely seriously. Indeed, in the current year we are projecting to spend $100 million on the environment. We really are putting our money where our mouth is.

With respect to contaminated sites, my department allocated close to $70 million over the past year for the assessment, cleanup and ongoing management of these sites.

We understand that work remains to be done but we are fully committed to getting on with that work.

[Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already indicated that Canada has made an effort to eliminate these bombs internationally. Unfortunately, we were not successful, but we did try.

We have nothing to apologize for, as I said to the NDP last week. We have done our best on this issue. We put it before the international court of opinion. We did not win but we made every effort we could to deal with the issue.

[Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I already said, Canada does not use these bombs. Our policy regarding these bombs is reviewed every year.

[Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the last thing the government would do, as the Prime Minister has said, would be to send men and women to war for economic reasons. We have not done so, nor will we ever. This is the position of the government, as the Prime Minister explained very clearly this morning.

[Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is true, as the hon. member suggests, that making such decisions is sometimes a very solemn and very difficult matter. The government has, however, stated on a number of occasions that our alliances with our partners are crucial. The government has decided to honour those agreements. The government unreservedly supports our men and women who are in the region.

[National Defence, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it occasionally happens that interim things have a habit of once in a while becoming permanent, but I should point out to the hon. member that while her first interest naturally is in her riding, my first responsibility in this area in the post-September 11, post-Iraq period, is to provide training to the first defenders in the event of a terrorist attack and the facility at Arnprior was simply not up to the task.

[Iraq, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that the Government of Canada is proud to be engaged with our American friends in the war against terrorism in the gulf. Unlike the NDP and the Bloc, we are pleased when Ambassador Cellucci draws attention to the size of our contribution to this effort.

As I mentioned to the hon. member last week, if there is a boat carrying mines or other things damaging to ships, we will intercept that boat whether it is carrying an Iraqi flag, a Canadian flag or any other flag.

[Iraq, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised the question of the breadth of one's definition of terrorists. I think the Canadian Alliance is unrivalled in these matters. I remember a couple of years ago when the House decided to make Nelson Mandela an honorary citizen that it was a member of the Canadian Alliance who branded him a terrorist, a position with which this government took great exception.

[Canadian Forces, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I followed that convoluted logic. My colleague suggested I might try to draw a picture to answer the question. I understand that props are not allowed in the House, so I will leave it at that.

[Canadian Forces, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very tired question covering material I have gone over a dozen times.

These exchange agreements have been in place for decades. Before we send such a person, we verify that the actions are in accordance with the directions of the Canadian military and the Canadian government. However, once the person is in the field, he or she does not write back to Ottawa for orders on day to day matters but nevertheless, remains subject to Canadian law.