Canadian troops serving with U.S.-led forces in Iraq are covered by the Geneva Conventions, the prime minister assured the House of Commons Wednesday.

Jean Chretien was responding to questions from Alliance leader Stephen Harper, who is concerned 31 soldiers on exchange with U.S. forces in Iraq would be considered "non-combatants" if they were captured by Iraqi forces.

"This convention applies to the members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict," Harper told the House, adding that since the prime minister has stated Canada is not a party to the conflict, Canadian military personnel are exempt from protection.

That status would mean the captured Canadian soldiers would have no protection as prisoners of war under international law.

Chretien dismissed the suggestion. "When they are in the army with another country they are covered by the rules that govern the army where they are working with at this moment," he said.

Unconvinced, Harper raised an example: "A soldier outside the Geneva Convention is defined as an unlawful combatant. That was the U.S. position in the Afghan war for captured Saudis, that there government was not part of that war. The Canadian government backed that position."

But Chretien said he sees nothing wrong with the arrangement that has Canadians working as part of the British, Australian and American armies.

"I've not been informed that there was anything illegal about this longstanding tradition that we have exchanges with our allies," Chretien insisted. "When they are part of these armies they serve under the authority of the country they are serving as part of the exchange."

Debate over the details of Canada's military role in the Iraq war confused NDP House leader Bill Blaikie.

"Could the prime minister please tell us how this is consistent with his position that we're not participating in the war in Iraq?" Blaikie asked.

"I can't for the life of me understand why the prime minister would continue to contaminate his own very valid position on the war in Iraq by insisting on having Canadian troops involved."

Alliance MP Leon Benoit suggested that the government 's "secret" plan to actively back the war, Defence Minister John McCallum also pointed to apparent contradictions in the debate.

"The honourable member himself should not object to any Canadian troops being involved because he himself would like to see a far larger involvement than the government. So I don't really know what he's complaining about," McCallum told the House.

Debate Wednesday was toned down from the heated exchanges that erupted the day before. McCallum even told the House he was making an effort to quiet the debate. "I'm trying to be polite and subdued today because I'm somewhat concerned about the reaction that the opposition might explode with."

McCallum was referring to a number of outbursts Tuesday in which he was called an "idiot" and a "clown" by the Opposition leader.

Harper started the personal attacks against the Liberals when he called McCallum an "idiot" during heckling in the House.

Outside the Commons, Harper acknowledged that frustration with the federal government got the better of him. But he then went on to insult McCallum further.

"It was probably not an appropriate term, but we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win," Harper said.

"And then this clown gets up and makes these ridiculous defences about how you can have troops in the field and somehow they're not your responsibility and somehow you're not part of the war."

Harper said it's hypocritical of the government to have exchange officers in the war against Iraq while at the same time opposing the conflict and maintaining they're not combatants.

During question period Tuesday, McCallum dismissed Harper's concerns in turn calling the Canadian Alliance's stance hypocritical.

"I wish the Alliance would spare us their rank hypocrisy," McCallum said.

"When they speak of us washing our hands of our troops or not supporting our troops I take extremely strong exception to that comment... It is the Canadian Alliance that is trying to score cheap political points on the backs of our soldiers."
But there are signs the issue is cleaving a growing divide in the Liberal caucus.

Toronto-area MP Maria Minna said the 31 Canadians should be brought home. Another Ontario MP, Julian Reed, said they should stay in Iraq, and fight alongside U.S. and British forces.

Lt.-Gen. Mike Jeffery told the House of Commons defence committee Tuesday that Canadian exchange officers may be among the 120,000 U.S. military personnel being sent to Iraq as reinforcements. There are currently 31 Canadian military officers serving with U.S. forces in Iraq.

In total, Canada has about 100 officers serving on exchange programs with American forces, 50 with British and a handful with Australian, French and other allies.