STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER JEAN CHRÉTIEN IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

April 8, 2003
Ottawa, Ontario

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today to support the motion before the House. A principled motion. Where we reaffirm our decision not to participate in the war in Iraq. But to continue our participation in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. A motion where we reaffirm our friendship with the United States and the United Kingdom and our support for the success of the coalition. Where we urge restraint in what we say to each other and about our friends in these emotionally charged times. Our motion also focusses on the need to turn our attention to the reconstruction of Iraq as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we will be voting later today on a Canadian Alliance motion. Which asks the House to apologise for statements made by certain Members of Parliament.

Presumably, the Leader of the Opposition wants the House of Commons to condemn the Leader of the Conservative Party for what he said in Winnipeg on March 26th about the American administration. Surely the motion would have the House of Commons condemn statements related to the war made by Members of the Bloc Québécois or the New Democratic Party.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are Members on this side of the House who have said things in recent weeks in reference to the war with which I strongly disagree, and which we all wish had not been said. But there are also Members on the other side of the House who say things every day with which all of us on this side disagree. Which we sometimes find, in the words of the Opposition Motion, to be offensive and inappropriate.

Mr. Speaker, we do not use our majority to introduce motions calling on this House to express regret and apologies for what Members opposite may say. We do not do so for a very simple reason. It is for the electorate, and not for the House of Commons, to pass such judgements.

Nothing is more fundamental in our democracy than the rights and privileges of Members of Parliament to speak their minds with complete freedom. These rights and privileges have evolved over centuries in the British parliamentary system. These rights and privileges are a precious asset in a democracy. And are not to be tampered with. Ever.

I have been in this House a long, long time. Indeed, I was first elected forty years ago today. Over these many years, I have witnessed and participated in very intense debates. Over very controversial issues. Where passions have run very high. Where government and opposition have defended fundamentally different positions.

But in all these years, I cannot recall any Motion that would have cast a greater chill over the rights of Members of Parliament to free speech than the Canadian Alliance motion we are voting on today.

Mr. Speaker, the same Members who call me a dictator - the gentler ones call me a friendly dictator - now complain that I do not vet the speeches and remarks of every member of my Party.

But even worse, they want the House of Commons to condemn Members from both sides for expressing their views. As long as it has the confidence of the House, the government speaks on behalf of the nation. The Deputy Prime Minister spoke eloquently in the House, last week, on behalf of the government and on behalf of the people of Canada. But this Party, this government, and this Prime Minister will never vote for a Motion that casts a chill on the rights and the privileges of Members of Parliament to free speech in this House.

And that is why we have proposed a positive resolution that reflects the profoundly held views of Canadians about the war in Iraq. To which I would like to speak.

Canada took a principled stand against participating in military intervention in Iraq. From the beginning our position has been clear. To work through the United Nations to achieve the goals we share with our friends and allies. Disarming Saddam Hussein. Strengthening the international rule of law and human rights. Working towards enduring peace in the region.

We worked very, very hard to achieve a consensus in the Security Council. We hoped with a little more time and with robust inspections that war could be averted and Iraq could have been disarmed.

We argued that a multilateral approach through the United Nations was key to enhancing the international legitimacy of military action and would make it easier after the war was over. We applied these principles in deciding not to join the coalition when the war began without a new resolution of the Security Council.

The decision on whether or not to send troops into battle must always be a decision of principle. Not a decision of economics. Not even a decision of friendship alone.

Our friendship with the United States is far stronger than some of our critics would have us believe. Our friendship is far stronger than those who scare-monger would have us believe. It is far stronger than some who purport to speak for the business community would have us believe. Close friends can disagree at times and can still remain close friends.

I remember as a young Member of Parliament when Mr. Pearson spoke out in the United States against the war in Vietnam. But the United States administration was disappointed. And I suspect that even the American ambassador at the time was disappointed. But our friendship did not suffer. Neither country has ever been in the business of economic retaliation over disagreements on issues of foreign policy. That is not what our relationship is all about.

The closeness of our relationship goes well beyond economics alone. Many of us remember with pride some 23 years ago when Ken Taylor, the Canadian ambassador in Iran, rescued Americans in the US Embassy in Teheran. That is what our friendship is all about. A friendship that is found in the relations between our two national governments, our states and provinces, our cities, our institutions of learning, our businesses, our hospitals. Above all in our people who work together, marry one another, go to one another's schools and universities, play in the same sports leagues, and even sometimes live in one country and work in the other.

The decision we made three weeks ago was not an easy one at all. We would have preferred to be able to agree with our friends. But we, as an independent country, make our own decisions based on our own principles. Such as our longstanding belief in the value of a multilateral approach to global problems. An approach which we believe is more than ever necessary. As we face the threats of global terrorism, environmental damage on a vast scale, and many other extremely difficult challenges.

The true test of our principles and our values is precisely whether they guide us when our choices are very difficult. I am proud that this House has spoken so clearly for our principles. I am proud of this country. And I am grateful for the support of Canadians.

Now the war is on and our friends are in battle. While we are not participating in the coalition for reasons I have expressed, let it be very clear, this government and all Canadians hope for a quick victory for the U.S.-led coalition with a minimum of casualties. We share the concerns of our American, British and Australian friends for their sons and daughters who are bravely fighting. We share concern for the safety of Iraqi civilians. We care about the outcome even if we are not participants in the war. This means that we should not say things that could give comfort to Saddam Hussein. And this means we should not do things that would create real difficulties for the coalition.

While some express their disappointment because we are not participating in the coalition, perhaps they forget that the USA is currently waging two wars and we are fully engaged in supporting them in the war on terrorism.

When the USA was attacked on September 11, 2001:

• we stood shoulder to shoulder with them in our shock and grief;
• people of Newfoundland and other Canadians took into their homes tens of thousands Americans whose flights could not go home;
• we quickly ratified and implemented all international conventions on terrorism and worked closely with the US on terrorist financing and border issues;
• we passed new anti-terrorism legislation;
• we played a crucial and highly-appreciated role alongside US troops in Kandahar;
• we currently have 1280 military personnel, three warships and aircraft in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea as part of the multi-lateral mission against terrorism; and
• we will be returning to Afghanistan this summer with troops.

Mr. Speaker, it is now time for Canada to focus on humanitarian aid and on the post-war reconstruction of Iraq.

We have already pledged $100 million to help provide access to clean water, proper sanitation, food, shelter and primary health care. Twenty-five million of this has already been disbursed. We are also working closely with the US, Great Britain and other countries, UN organizations and other multilateral institutions, to plan now how to help the Iraqi people after the current conflict is over. We agree with Prime Minister Blair that the United Nations must be closely involved in the process of reconstructing Iraq. But I think it would be impossible for the UN to do it all alone. And we are ready to help as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I want to say that while we all focus on the current situation with respect to Iraq, we cannot ignore other pressing issues. Like the threat from North Korea and the continuing instability in the Middle East. Like the need to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There again Canada believes in a multi-lateral approach, in the interests of international peace and security.

We must also recognize that long-term peace and security require not only better intelligence, or armed responses.

For hundreds of millions of people, the main threats to their well-being are those of famine, disease, feeble economies, lack of educational opportunity, corrupt or inept governance, and regional conflicts.

President Bush recognized these needs. In Monterrey a year ago, in Kananaskis and in his State of the Union address to Congress in January, he demonstrated real leadership in his commitment to increase international assistance in general. And in particular to combat the plague of AIDS in Africa. I want to take this opportunity on behalf of all Canadians to congratulate him for that.

Despite all the pressures on him at home, post September 11, the President recognized that these issues of poverty, trade, and development are in the long run as important to a secure, stable world as addressing the immediate threats we face from terrorism.

I am confident that as we confront the challenges which are before us, we will triumph over them, by being strong at home, strong in partnership, and partners in a strong international system. Loyal to our friends and loyal to our principles and confident in who we are.

-30-