Stephen Harper

[Iraq, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister said he was against regime change in Iraq from the outside. Yesterday the foreign affairs minister said, “We as a government are supportive of the United States' desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein”.

What is the government's position today on Saddam Hussein?

[Iraq, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, two world wars demonstrated that principles do not matter unless one is prepared to fight and stand for them.

Saddam is not just killing allied personnel. He is threatening his own people. He has placed military buildings inside residential areas. We have documented evidence of him using women and children as human shields. These are also violations of the Geneva convention.

When will the government reverse its decision to abandon our allies and fight Saddam?

[Iraq, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we do not believe in sacrificing our friends and our interests to a veto of Jacques Chirac.

A reason the government should reconsider its position is that it appears some allied POWs may have been executed by Saddam's soldiers. It is certainly clear that Saddam's treatment of allied personnel is a blatant violation of the Geneva convention. Given these realities, does the government now regret that it is not standing with our American and British friends in the fight against Saddam?

[Iraq, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not rule out participation in the allied military campaign in Iraq. The government has now had the weekend to reflect on subsequent events and to reconsider its position. Is the government now prepared to stand with our American and British friends for the end of the rule of Saddam Hussein?

[Iraq, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should not be vague. He should make it clear that the statement of the Minister of Natural Resources is unacceptable.

This anti-American statement follows a long pattern of such statements from all levels of the Liberal government, from staff, from backbenchers and now from cabinet ministers. Many Canadians and many of our American friends are increasingly convinced that this is not mere sloppiness but Liberal strategy.

Why are remarks like this always targeted at the U.S. administration and never the regime of Saddam Hussein?

[Iraq, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we are not neutral on this side and in this country. We are hoping for the success of the Americans, the British and their allies.

I want to address the anti-American comments that were made yesterday. The Prime Minister was forced to accept the resignation of his communications director for her anti-American statements, yet he refused to censure members of his own backbench for similar statements.

Which treatment will the Minister of Natural Resources receive? Resignation or approval.

[Iraq, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the allied effort to disarm and end the regime of Saddam Hussein has begun. Notwithstanding the Liberal government's abandonment of our closest traditional allies, Canadians will be hoping for a successful end to the conflict in Iraq.

This morning the Prime Minister in his statement hoped that it would be a brief conflict. Would the Prime Minister avail himself of this opportunity to wish our allies a short and successful campaign?

[Supply, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will not debate every historical point. I will just point out that the NDP's tradition of pacifism has a tendency to go much farther than that. The NDP missed Saddam Hussein in 1991, just as it is missing him today. We all remember that. For much of the cold war, that party missed or downplayed the evil represented by the Soviet empire. As the member concedes, the NDP leader of the day did miss the threat posed by Adolf Hitler. I would concede the CCF voted for the war at the very end. I do not know what it did during the 1930s, but I do remember well my father and grandfather and relatives telling me how during the 1930s people of that persuasion ignored the evils of Adolf Hitler and told them that Adolf Hitler was just helping the German working man and this kind of thing.

And it is even today. The NDP has a history of this. At these kinds of moments, it not only has a history of being on the wrong side of the issue, but as it has done in the House today, it targets all its criticisms at the good guys and all its criticisms at what they may do. I urge the NDP to reconsider, to consider how serious the threat of Saddam Hussein is for the world and for Iraq and to stand by the removal of that regime.

[Supply, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I did address the issue of the legality of this action. We firmly believe that this intervention is legal under international law.

We are disappointed—and our take on this is completely different from that of the Bloc Quebecois—that some of the permanent members of the Security Council, including France, have decided to back out of their commitments pursuant to resolution 1441 and previous resolutions. It is unfortunate, but it is now up to our allies, our historical allies, namely the Americans and the British, to act. We support their action.

[Supply, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me address the preamble to begin with. I do not know whether the polls the minister cites represent the opinion of the Canadian people or not, but what I do know is that in these matters we judge the national interests of the country, not at this time, not today and not tomorrow, but we stand by the permanent national interests of the country. This country and many around the world made tragic errors in the 1930s by underestimating the threats that we faced. We on this side will never do that again.

Just to reply briefly to the minister's substantive question, I must say that our interpretation of events is completely the opposite of his. North Korea has not acted because of the invasion of Iraq or the boldness of allied action. It has acted as it has because of the increasing uncertainty and lack of determination to act that was apparent on the part of so many countries over the last few months. It is not a coincidence that what North Korea has done occurred in the shadow of international bickering and indecision over Iraq. That issue is obviously with us. It will have to be addressed. It is a serious one, but I believe we are strengthened today in taking decisive action.

I would just point out to the minister his own contradiction. He said they stand for values. I do not know what they are. The only reference has been to other members of the United Nations Security Council, which frankly have not historically shared our aims and interests. He quotes the desire for peaceful resolution but he concedes that Saddam Hussein has been unwilling to act. The contradictions mount. I believe the government has no coherent policy, but if it does, I ask it to join with us and the Bloc Québécois and allow on a vote on these measures today.