Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the second part of the opposition motion. Although Canada and the United States came to a different conclusion on Iraq, it is as true today as it was a week or a month ago that the United States remains Canada's greatest friend and ally.
It was over 60 years ago that the two countries signed an agreement in Ogdensburg by which Canada undertook always to work co-operatively with the United States in the joint defence of our continent against our common enemies, whether those enemies were Nazi Germany during the second world war, the Soviet Union in the cold war or terrorists today.
Equally fundamental, Canada has undertaken for decades to ensure that America's northern flank, the Canada-U.S. border, never poses a security risk for the people of that country. We have been working and, indeed, redoubling our efforts over the past weeks, months and years.
Finally, following the events of September 11, 2001, it became apparent that the defence of North America required going overseas in pursuit of those terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center on September 11. Canada was part, in the early days, of the forces to fight in Afghanistan and, indeed, at one point we were the fourth largest contingent.
The point I would like to make today is that notwithstanding our disagreement with the United States over policy on Iraq, our commitment to terrorism remains strong, as strong as ever, notwithstanding the greater risk we face.
That brings me as well to the question of principle where the opposition claims that we are not acting on principle. I would say that we are. We are acting on two principles, the first of which was referred to by my colleague, the principle of Canada remaining true to our multilateral traditions and to the United Nations; and the second principle, which has more to do with my portfolio, is that we remain true to our commitment to fight terrorism.
Notwithstanding the different conclusions to which we have arrived on Iraq, our commitment to terrorism remains as strong as ever, if not stronger than it was before this war broke out, and that is a very important principle to which I would like to refer in my remarks.
Naturally I fully support the part of the opposition's motion that calls for the House to offer its unequivocal support for members of the Canadian Forces serving in the gulf region. I said this last week when I urged members of Parliament to demonstrate solidarity in our support for their continued efforts and sacrifice. I will say it again. I am proud of the Canadian Forces wherever they are working. The training, courage and humanity of our men and women in uniform are second to none. They have proven this time and again in operations around the globe.
We have a duty to provide support to members of the armed forces, regardless of where they are serving. Why do they merit our support? Quite simply because they are prepared to defend us and to defend what we believe as a nation.
They accepted the principle of unlimited responsibility. They are prepared to risk their lives for Canada and, as a result, merit our unconditional support at the very least.
There is no question that we fully support our personnel currently serving on board ships in the Arabian Sea region. We are proud of them. They are fulfilling important responsibilities and are contributing directly to international peace and security. For example, they have conducted maritime interdiction operations on vessels entering and leaving Iraq.
Also, since the fall of 2001 and the attacks on the United States, the primary focus of our ships has been their contribution to the campaign against terrorism through the conduct of visit and search operations. These operations entail boarding vessels and making sure that they are not helping al-Qaeda or Taliban members escape the area. Since the earliest days of Operation Apollo, our ships have been doing an outstanding job. They have hailed more than 10,000 ships and conducted more than 260 boardings. This represents about 60% of all the boardings carried out by the coalition fleet.
As well, Canadian ships escort and protect vessels transiting through the Arabian Gulf. Canada must be able to support and protect the military forces of those nations that are participating in or supporting the campaign against terrorism. If a ship of one of our allies comes under attack, members can be assured that we respond: Let there be absolutely no doubt about that.
As further proof of the high quality of the work being done by Canadian Forces members and ships in the region, Canada has recently assumed command of a multinational task force of ships called Task Force 151, consisting of not only Canada and the United States but also Holland, New Zealand, France and Greece. Canadian command of Task Force 151 under Commodore Roger Girouard represents a significant geographic expansion of Canada's area of operation in the Arabian Gulf region, and the added responsibilities will enhance Canada's ongoing contribution to the campaign against terrorism.
As well, we should be proud of the members of our air force who are currently deployed in southwest Asia.
Last week I mentioned that the outbreak of war on Iraq would lead to an increase of the terrorist threat in the region. The mission being carried out by our ships, aircraft and personnel in the region therefore becomes much more important. I think another important point to emphasize is that certain members of the opposition, notably the Bloc and the NDP, would wish us to withdraw our ships just when the risk of a terrorist threat becomes higher; in other words, when the going gets tough or the risk becomes greater, we cut and run. That is not the policy of the government.
We Canadians are fortunate to live in a country where there is peace. The events of September 11 have, however, made us aware that no one is totally sheltered from danger.
This is not the time to stand down from our responsibilities and commitments. This is not the time to falter in our support for the Canadian Forces and our allies.
As I have indicated, the situation in Iraq may mean increased risks to our personnel in the region and I want to advise members of the House that we have taken the necessary precautions to protect our personnel from possible biological and chemical attacks. All of our ships are designed to survive such attacks. They are equipped with wash-down systems and with so-called citadel protection, which gives the ships the capacity to seal themselves in the event of a biological or chemical attack. Each of our ships also carries protective suits, gas masks and filters to protect all personnel from chemical or biological agents. Our troops deserve the best protection against possible attack and we have made sure that they have it.
I should mention the exchange officers. We have a longstanding commitment to exchange military personnel with our allies. This commitment predates armed conflict in Iraq and is now a matter of routine military business, business which benefits our members and allies a great deal. At this time there are about 30 Canadian exchange officers whose units may be participating in the conflict in Iraq. Based on the nature of their employment and national direction to them, these members will use force only in self-defence. Let us remember that national command of these troops is and will remain at all times with our chief of defence staff.
Our allies count on our exchange officers. They are fully integrated into the operations of their units. We have absolutely no intention of breaking our commitments to our allies, particularly at this critical time. Their sudden withdrawal could potentially endanger the security and safety of allied personnel, and it would damage the reputation of Canada and the Canadian Forces as a trusted ally. For all of these reasons, our exchange officers will remain where they are.
In closing, on behalf of the members of the Canadian Forces, I would like to express my condolences in regard to the fallen comrades, the American soldiers who have died so far in these operations. I would also like to express my wish, as the Prime Minister did last week, that the Americans prosecute this war successfully and that it comes to an early conclusion in order to minimize human suffering and loss of life on all sides.
