John McCallum

[Committees of the House, March 20th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I have already answered that question. I said that I would not enter into this debate because now that military action is underway, I will not comment on that debate regarding the link or the lack of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

[Committees of the House, March 20th, 2003]

I will need less than that Madam Speaker, because these issues are straying somewhat far from the role of the minister of defence.

I am aware that the British and the Americans have a legal case for their war. Other international lawyers have different opinions. I will not assess, as a minister of defence and before that an economist, the competing merits of alternative views regarding international law.

[Committees of the House, March 20th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate at this time for me to comment on the debate that has gone on for many months about the linkages or lack thereof between the government of Iraq and terrorists, al-Qaeda. I do not want to get into that.

Suffice it to say, as the Prime Minister indicated today, it is the government's hope that the war be swift and that the casualities be minimized. The foreign affairs minister and the Prime Minister have spoken for Canada and have said very clearly that while we respect and understand the United States' position, we in this country have a different position. We have decided that we would not participate in military action in Iraq because it is not supported by the Security Council of the United Nations.

As the Prime Minister and foreign affairs minister have stated many times, that is the position of the government.

[Committees of the House, March 20th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough East.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the motion before us today, particularly to say that we cannot support the amendment as it stands.

It is very important to understand what the Canadian Forces are doing, and why they are doing it.

Before getting into the details of these matters I would like to situate this a little. Even though Canada and the United States have come to a different conclusion on the question of Iraq, it is as true today as it was a week ago that the United States is Canada's greatest friend and ally.

On things that really count we are with the United States the great majority of the time. For example, there is nothing more important than the defence of our continent. Since 1940, Canada and the United States have had a solemn pact to defend jointly our continent against aggressors. Since that time as well, Canada has undertaken to ensure that the northern flank of the United States, the northern Canada-U.S. border, should not pose a security risk for the American people.

More recently, following the events of September 11, Canada was with the United States all the way in terms of the war against terrorism.

There are three issues that this amendment deals with. First, it deals with the soldiers, sailors, airmen and women on exchange with allies, including the United States. Second, it relates to our presence in Qatar. Third, it references the ships in the Persian Gulf. I will deal with these three issues one at a time.

Long before the situation in Iraq developed we made commitments to our allies and we fully intend to honour those commitments. On the subject of exchange officers, let me put this issue in context. There are only some 30 people who could be affected. These individuals are filling positions like ship technicians, air crew and headquarters staff. None of these people are in a direct combat position and none are authorized to use force except in self-defence.

These secondments have been an important part of our defence relations with our allies for decades. I cannot think of a worse time to renege on these commitments. At best, it is not the message we want to send to our allies at this critical time. At worst, it could put the lives of our allies at risk. It could compromise the integrity and effectiveness of our allies' missions and could jeopardize the security and safety of their colleagues.

I would like to make it clear that our personnel is under the responsibility of the Chief of the Defence Staff at all times.

In terms of the second issue, the presence of a number of liaison officers in Qatar, as I have already indicated, given Canada's decision regarding military action in Iraq, we are in the process of downsizing the number of people that we have in Qatar. We will not however be downsizing it to zero because we continue to lead the task force. We need some presence in Qatar to obtain the information necessary to carry out our role with this task force.

I come now to Canada's naval role. One has to understand that this goes back to our commitment to the war against terrorism. All members of the House will remember the horrific events of September 11, will remember Canada's response to those events, and will remember perhaps the ceremony outside the House of Commons where over 100,000 people showed up to mark our respect for those who were killed and our determination to join in this war against terrorism. We have been doing so since that time. At a certain moment we were the fourth largest contingent in Afghanistan in terms of the war on terrorism.

Canada's commitment to the international campaign against terrorism remains strong. As a consequence, we will not be removing our forces from the area. On the contrary, armed conflict in Iraq could lead to an increase in the terrorist threat. This is not the time to cut and run. This is the time to stand by our commitment to vanquish terrorism. Our contribution to the campaign against international terrorism has been and remains considerable, particularly on the naval side.

We currently have more than 1,200 members of the Canadian Forces deployed in the Persian Gulf. Two Canadian ships are en route to relieve HMCS Winnipeg and HMCS Montréal in that region.

Our ships are in the gulf to escort vessels transiting through the Arabian gulf and to protect them. Our ships are there to conduct maritime interdiction operations, to board suspected vessels to ensure that they are not carrying prohibited material or transporting terrorists. The outbreak of war in the region means that the terrorist risk may be even greater. For this reason, we will not remove our ships from the 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 the ship of one of our allies comes under attack, members can be assured that we will certainly feel a duty to respond, and respond we will.

The fact that Canada was entrusted with this important responsibility speaks to the high quality of our navy and to its many accomplishments. Countries, including France, the Netherlands, Greece and New Zealand, have contributed ships to task force 151 and look to Canada for leadership and commitment. We will not let them down.

In closing, I want to commend the Canadian Forces for the superb commitment they have shown. They have proven themselves time and again. Whether on the ground, in the air or at sea, they have earned the respect of Canadians and our allies. We, the members of Parliament, should demonstrate solidarity and our support for their efforts and sacrifice.

I can assure members that we will not stand down from our commitments. We will not abandon the struggle for international peace and security and we will not abandon our allies if a serious security situation arises during these difficult moments in the region. It is for all of the above reasons that the government cannot support the proposed amendment to repatriate our members in the region.

[National Defence, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question for the colleague of the right hon. member. I do not think it is appropriate for me to deal with such issues in public, but given the right hon. member's past as a prime minister and his long service to Canada I would certainly be happy to have a private conversation with him and say more to him then than I can say in public.

[National Defence, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult enough to answer when there are so many factual errors, but when there are about 17 questions, it becomes even more difficult.

For the reasons I have already given, I have received every assurance from sources more competent than the hon. member that these aircraft are indeed safe. It is always a risk when one flies, whatever the vehicle may be. These helicopters have carried out more than 2,000 missions in the gulf area and they have done so with exemplary success.

[National Defence, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to answer a question in 30 something seconds when the question is so riddled with factual errors.

I might just say that I have been assured by the chief of defence staff, who himself used to fly helicopters, that the Sea Kings are safe. The same was said by three helicopter pilots that I consulted this morning.

In terms of the hon. member's contention that they are not safe, even the Montreal Gazette yesterday, in response to those criticisms, carried a headline “Sea King criticism 'doesn't fly'”.

[Iraq, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is appropriate, given security concerns, to enter into every conceivable threat that might fall upon our ships. I can assure the hon. member as I said before that I share her deep concern that every possible measure be taken to enhance the safety and security of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. These measures have in fact been taken.

[Iraq, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I share entirely the hon. member's concern for the safety and security of our troops in the gulf. We are defending our allies against terrorist attacks. The risk of terrorist attacks has gone up in recent days and we are definitely very concerned about their safety and security. Without getting into operational details, I can inform the hon. member that they do have robust rules which will allow them to defend themselves against a number of conceivable attacks.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have been having troop exchanges with our allies, be they British or American, for decades. It is completely normal for soldiers of one country to remain under the command of another in such circumstances. However, their own country, Canada in this instance, reserves the right to order its soldiers home, should it so choose. Since these are good allies and the soldiers are not in a direct combat role, Canada has decided to leave them where they are.