John McCallum

[Iraq, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said repeatedly, the government as of September 11 has been fully committed to the war against terrorism. We went to Afghanistan, and our ships are still there fighting terrorists. We are going back to Afghanistan with the ISAF mission to maintain security in that beleaguered country.

In many countries in the world criminals are doing terrorist things. We cannot be everywhere, but Canada is doing more than our share in the war against terrorism.

[National Defence, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her good question.

I would say a large part of our missions focus on maintaining peace and security, such as in Afghanistan and in Bosnia, where we have thousands of soldiers. However, there is also the war on terrorism in which Canada is very involved, as I have explained several times in the House. We are also there to take part in the war on terrorism in addition to maintaining peace and security.

[Iraq, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is no ambiguity when it comes to the government's position. There are two key principles, as the Prime Minister said.

First, we are not taking part in the war, for multilateral reasons, as the Prime Minister explained. Second, we are enthusiastically and proudly there to take part in the war on terrorism. These are two clear principles that are not ambiguous.

[Iraq, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, Canada is proud to participate in the war on terrorism in the gulf. Do I have to repeat it a hundred times? We are proud; we are there. The risk of terrorism is higher now; we are staying there. We do not want to leave the area, as the Bloc Quebecois has proposed, as soon as the risks increase. We are there, we are proud to be there and we will stay there.

[Iraq, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is utterly ridiculous. As I just said, we know which units our soldiers are serving in. The control is still in the hands of the Chief of Defence Staff. These soldiers are in support positions. They do not have the right to use force, except to defend themselves. I have been saying the same thing for days. That is all.

[Iraq, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is completely inaccurate. We know exactly which units our soldiers are assigned to. For security reasons, we do not want to reveal their exact location at each moment of the day. As the Prime Minister said, this line of questioning from the Bloc over the past few days is a waste of time.

[National Defence, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like that second question was written before she received the answer to the first because I have already explained that $1 billion has been put in to eliminate the sustainability gap and that will permit the resources to get more mechanics.

The other thing is the Canadian economy has been so hugely successful that many sectors of the economy, including the military, have trouble attracting skilled labour.

Would the hon. member prefer that instead of creating half a million new jobs, Canada was plunged into recession? Then there might be more mechanics available.

[National Defence, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for once the opposition is right. There is a shortage of mechanics, for two reasons. One, this was part of the $1 billion sustainability gap which was closed in the last budget. More resources will be going into this area.

Second, we have been the victim of our own success. Because the Canadian economy has created more than half a million jobs over the last years, many sectors of the economy are having difficulty attracting skilled labour, and we are one of those sectors trying to attract that skilled labour.

[Iraq, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, would the NDP have us withdraw our exchange soldiers? Given that this would put the lives of the soldiers of our allies at risk, this would be a callous act. Would the NDP have us take our ships back at the moment when the risk has gone up? That would be a cowardly act.

The government will do neither of those things because the government is neither callous nor cowardly.

[National Defence, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I was not attacking the reputation of Captain Hill. I did not mention his name. I suppose if there was one person whose reputation I could be accused of attacking, it is the hon. member himself since I suggested that he was lacking credibility on the subject of the safety of Sea Kings.

The chief of defence staff has authority on this matter by virtue of the fact that he is the chief of the defence staff and this report is in the process of being reviewed by the appropriate authorities in the usual way.