37th PARLIAMENT,
2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 054
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 6, 2003
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Public Service Modernization Act |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Point of Order |
|
|
Statements by Ministers |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Public Service Modernization Act |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
|
Canadian Coast Guard |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Official Languages |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--Military Involvement in Iraq |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Alex Shepherd |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Alex Shepherd |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Alex Shepherd |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Alex Shepherd |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
Statements by Members
|
|
|
Shirley L. Thomson |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) |
|
|
Member for LaSalle--Émard |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Food Freedom Day |
|
|
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.) |
|
|
Family Mediation |
|
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.) |
|
|
Queen's Golden Jubilee Medals |
|
|
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.) |
|
|
Conditional Sentences |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Eating Disorders |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Circus Industry |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Community Access Centres |
|
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Northern B.C. Winter Games |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Black History Month |
|
|
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) |
|
|
Black History Month |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Semaine des Enseignantes et des Enseignants au Québec |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) |
|
|
Anti-Smoking Campaign |
|
|
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.) |
|
|
Health Care |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture and Agri-Food |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Industry |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Human Resources Development |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Industry |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
[------] |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--Military Involvement in Iraq |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown |
|
|
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
|
|
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Irwin Cotler |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Acadian People |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, February 6, 2003
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1005)
[Translation]
Government Response to Petitions
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.
* * *
Public Service Modernization Act
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-25, An Act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Point of Order
Statements by Ministers
[Point of Order]
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In a few minutes you will be hearing two statements by ministers and replies from the other parties.
Traditionally, the government provides copies of ministers' statements to members, members on the other side of the House, and this was done.
Less than an hour after one of these documents was provided to the opposition, the opposition spokesperson was giving interviews to the media in connection with the document. At that time, moreover, phone calls were made to the office of the minister, seeking his reaction to the statements made by the opposition, which had just scooped the announcement to be made by the minister the following day.
If ministers are supposed to reserve their statements for the House, out of courtesy, parliamentarians must respect embargoes.
This must be put to the House immediately, in order to avoid any repetition of such an occurrence. Otherwise, we shall have to resort to doing the strict minimum, which is to provide copies of statements an hour before they are tabled.
That is what the standing orders require, but the convention has been to try to do more than that, in the spirit of cooperation. This is not possible, however, unless everyone respects the rules.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was just talking to the government House leader. I just learned about this a short while ago. I certainly agree with the House leader that this is a process that has happened for a long time and it should be respected.
The member involved is not here today. It is still a little early on the west coast but I am doing my best to reach that member. I am sure he will want to apologize to the minister if in fact this is what happened.
(1010)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice to that of my colleagues and say to the minister that I share his opinion.
The minister can continue to do what has already been done here, in the House—if apologies are offered then we will see—that is, to put this question to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, because we have already criticized similar behaviour by ministers of this government.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would very briefly like to point out that if the House leader for the government maintains that the information was circulated in advance of the release and somebody released it to the media, it certainly could not have been the NDP because we were not given the courtesy of receiving any advance information regarding either of these bills. Therefore, for the record, the NDP did not release this information.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I also agree with what the government House leader said. Statements given to us for a response must be held in secret until they are tabled in the House.
However, let me say to the government House leader that this works both ways. It also works in relation to committees.
Yesterday morning in the House a report in relation to the coast guard was tabled. Yesterday morning, before the report was tabled, I read interviews in the newspaper that were done on the report by government members saying that the Liberals were pressing the government. The Liberals had very little to do with it. It has to work both ways.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I believe these interventions send a very clear message. The Chair most certainly agrees that the previous collaboration should continue. Each party must be responsible and respect the unwritten rule; if a document has not been tabled in the House, it is to remain secret.
That said, we will resume the daily routine of business.
The hon. President of the Treasury Board.
* * *
Public Service Modernization Act
[Routine Proceedings]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure, as you know, that I table today the Public Service Modernization Act.
Each and every member of this House is here for the same reason: to serve Canadians. The Government serves Canadians, here at home and abroad, largely through the work of a competent, professional public service. This bill ensures the capacity of the public service to provide the best services to Canadians today and in the future, to continue to make important contributions to the quality of life of Canadians.
In the Speech From the Throne on January 30, 2001, the Government committed to “—the reforms needed for the Public Service of Canada to...[be] able to attract and develop the talent needed to serve Canadians in the 21st century”.
The Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management was established in April that year, with a mandate to recommend a modern policy, legislative and institutional framework for human resources management.
(1015)
[English]
The bill fulfills that commitment and that mandate. It is a critical step in the ongoing process of public service modernization, providing the foundation needed to allow the public service to attract, retain and develop the people it needs and to maintain a healthy and productive workplace to serve Canadians.
The bill would make major changes to the current legislative framework underpinning human resources management in the public service. It includes two new acts, a new public service employment act and a new public service labour relations act, and amends the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act.
We live in a constantly evolving world. The current legislation governing human resources management has changed little over the past three decades and no longer permits us to meet new challenges.
Our world has changed greatly over that period. Public service work is becoming more and more complex and fast paced. It requires employees and managers to be more flexible and to adapt to varying demands and circumstances.
[Translation]
Technological advances and globalization are contributing to an accelerated pace of change, one that challenges the innovative capacity of the public service. The public service cannot fall behind if it is to serve effectively.
The public's expectations of government will continue to increase. Citizens are demanding not only better services, but also more efficient management of resources and a greater level of participation in making decisions.
Competition for talent with the private sector and with other governments is going to intensify in an increasingly tight labour market. Large numbers of public servants are expected to retire over the next decade and will need to be replaced.
The public service will have to respond. We must give the public service the tools it needs to meet these challenges.
[English]
The bill is a comprehensive and carefully measured package of proposals. It represents a balanced approach, establishing the foundation needed to allow the public service to change the way it does its business and compete effectively to attract and retain the people it needs.
It provides for increased flexibility in staffing and managing people to help achieve results and meet new operational requirements better, combined with reinforced safeguards to protect merit in staffing and address possible abuses in the system.
The bill also provides for more co-operative labour-management relations to support a healthy, productive workplace while ensuring that the government can continue to manage the public service in the public interest. It supports more coherent training and development for employees to help them pursue their professional development and ensure that they have the skills and knowledge they need to do their jobs now and in the future.
[Translation]
It also clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the key players in human resources management—the Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission and deputy heads—with new measures to strengthen accountability at all levels, including better reporting to Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, these are important goals—indeed, they are important requirements—in the modernization of the public service and public service management. They must be realized to ensure that the public service will continue to be able to serve Canadians with excellence into the 21st century.
This Bill provides the foundation for the transformation of public service management. It is with pleasure that I will work with all members of this House to improve the way in which we manage public service employees, with the ultimate objective of providing the best possible services for our constituents.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and acknowledge, on behalf of the Canadian Alliance and the taxpayer, that the minister has made a positive statement of intent in the tabling of the public service modernization act.
We must ensure that we truly have a modern, flexible human resource management. In our party we have always valued the dedicated work of government employees, who have often, over the years, had to work under poor political leadership and uncertainty that their jobs would be eliminated in another reorganization of a ministry.
All members in the House are aware of past confrontational styles of union-management relations and even a controlling work culture. It is not a healthy sign when many employees have their union contract book as the most prominent document on their desks.
I am mindful of the debate in the House last evening where my caucus colleagues were pleading with the government, on behalf of public servants, for basic whistleblower protection for average employees. Many examples were given in the debate where dedicated employees have done their duties to observe and report significant problems and even wrongdoing to then later find out that it was particularly embarrassing to the government. It was the dutiful worker who was disciplined or dismissed rather than the public interest being served.
We are mindful of the evaluation of the Auditor General in 2001. The quote is:
|
The legislative and management framework for public service recruitment requires radical change to ensure that new systems and practices will be more responsive to both the operational requirements of departments and the long term needs of the public service. |
I am pleased to hear that the minister is trying to improve both the culture of government service and the local climate of the workplace for our loyal public employees. This is being done for both productivity and for service to the country.
I am pleased to hear of the reaffirmation of ongoing quality training. Moreover, it is hoped that the new measures to strengthen accountability at all levels, including better reporting to Parliament, will indeed be delivered.
Being a government employee should be seen as an honourable and rewarding career choice. Canada should be able to attract its brightest and best into public service. We will be able to do this if the context is thoroughly professional, the standards are high and the personal rewards of compensation and workplace meaning are significant.
It is hoped that as we examine the details and the implications of this bill that we can eventually can get to the point that we have a collaborative union-management culture where the public interest of Canada comes first and that it will be freely given rather than coerced. We need a climate of respect and, above all, a consciousness of the taxpayer for all government activity in whose name we all perform.
I am pleased to hear that the minister is open to some adjustments to the bill as the need may emerge during the legislative process at the committee stage. In response, our party will not be confrontational for partisan considerations. As a true government in waiting, the last thing we would contemplate from our side is to play politics with the lives of public service employees. However there are concerns about continued geographic discrimination and hiring, and the unwise use of affirmative action policies.
Canada is a great country. Moreover, working in the Canadian federal public service is quite good in comparison to the situation for employees of governments around the world. Nevertheless, things could be much better. There is no reason why Canada cannot become the best by receiving the best from its very best. It is all under our own control within our own borders. It is up to us.
Canada is great, not because we have had great leaders or great governments but because of average Canadians who have built this society and have sacrificed when called upon to make our country a better place to live. Public employees have worked to secure the nation. They strive to build a stable foundation despite unstable times.
The minister now implies that there will be a positive break with the past. We in the official opposition will perform our constructive part to ensure that positive values are reflected in the legislation.
We look forward to being completely engaged in this honourable project that the President of the Treasury Board has brought to the House this day.
(1020)
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the minister for having taken the initiative to make this change to legislation that has not been amended for at least 35 years. Clearly, this legislation needed to be updated. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois will participate in improving this bill.
During the briefing we got this morning, we could, unfortunately, already see the bill's shortcomings. However, the minister told us that she is willing to consider all amendments in order to improve the bill.
I think that, as far as public servants are concerned, it is not just a bill that will bring about this change. The new management needs to be improved so much that they might as well start from scratch.
The bill will at least provide us with a point of reference against which to compare the existing relationships between the employer, the government and the unions. The workers themselves are the most important of all. They should, at least, be able to be proud, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, of competently delivering services. These are services for the public. They are the reason that public servants are paid and that we pay taxes.
Public servants and senior management must be able to give their views. Of course, a very important provision, to protect whistle-blowers, is missing from this bill. There is nothing in the bill that allows public servants to do their job properly.
I say this because, this week again, the person responsible for informatics refused to answer the questions put to her, saying that the minister responsible would provide the answers. She is, however, one of the managers in charge of this issue.
It is essential to clearly protect these people who could provide us with the information we need, and that they not fear doing so, so that this information can be provided to the public.
Of course, the Bloc Quebecois will participate actively in the work of the committee. The committee will certainly study the bill in question in the hope that this legislation will bring about a change in culture, that there will be fewer political appointments, and that people will be judged on their abilities, so that the public service is truly active and responsible.
(1025)
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this could be a big day for Canada's 150,000 civil servants. Reform has never been so urgent as it is today. This has been a long awaited and a much ballyhooed announcement by the minister. I compliment the President of the Treasury Board for this ambitious undertaking.
When it was first announced nearly two years ago, many of us rolled our eyes and shook our heads in disbelief. Many of us have seen frustrated attempts to impose a change in culture in the civil service. We have seen these attempts come and go over the years. However I have confidence this time that we may be able to make meaningful changes. These are not just bureaucratic changes. These changes will be enshrined in legislation. The House of Commons will be seized with the issue and politicians will be involved, not just bureaucrats.
Perhaps it is this President of the Treasury Board who may bring these changes through because of the sensibilities she brings from the province of Quebec where unions are recognized as an integral part of civil society. They are not struggling for recognition as they are in the world of the Canadian Alliance. Unions play a meaningful part in this whole process.
I made the point that reform has never been so necessary. The civil service--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pat Martin: As soon as the peanut gallery finishes, Mr. Speaker, I will continue.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: You are standing in it.
Mr. Pat Martin: The civil service is justifiably demoralized after years of the madness of program review. Thirty thousand jobs were slashed. There were seven years of wage freezes. The previous president of the Treasury Board took $30 billion out of the public service pension plan surplus without any consultation with employees who owned that money. Confidence is at a new all time low. Productivity is down and so is morale. All these issues need to be addressed.
I am relieved and pleased to hear that a new Public Service Labour Relations Act will be imposed. When public employees won the right to free collective bargaining in 1967, there was never a proper labour relations regime imposed at that time. Therefore the massive public service has been floundering in a grey zone with no clear definition of how the collective bargaining regime should be operated, short of putting it under the Canada Labour Code. We are optimistic that a new labour relations act will finally give satisfaction to many of these long outstanding issues.
We in the NDP will be paying close attention to the bill as it moves forward. We hope that the recommendations of the Fryer commission, a long comprehensive study that took place leading up to the introduction of the bill, will be included in the bill. We will look for these changes. We do not want to just tinker with the act. We want to make substantive changes that will change the lives, the quality of work life and job satisfaction, which is so important if we are to expect productivity in the public sector.
(1030)
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise today in response to the President of the Treasury Board who has brought forward what I believe to be very positive proposed legislation which neither I nor my party have had an opportunity to look at yet. The public service modernization act is something that is direly needed in the House and could assist in developing a public sector within government.
First, I congratulate the President of the Treasury Board for making the statement in the House. I heard the House leader of the government cry crocodile tears when he suggested that some of the information was perhaps put forward prior to the minister's statement. That statement should have been made here and dealt with in the House. However I should also say I have seen too many statements and too many ministers of the Crown make public statements at a press conference as opposed to in the House. I congratulate the President of the Treasury Board for doing it in the right place, at the right time, and I thank her for that.
There is a very simple philosophy. Too many people in our society today view a public servant as being an individual who has a government job and is just walking through the motions. That is not the case. I can assure everyone that as a member of Parliament I deal with the employees of the public service on a regular basis. For the most part, the majority of them are there for the right reasons. They want to do a job on behalf of Canadians. They have a job, they have an outline of what they are responsible for and they try their darndest under those circumstances to ensure Canadians are served to the best of their ability.
For the most part public servants certainly are there for the right reasons. However I also follow a management philosophy that I learned a long time ago in another life; that direction comes from the top. Direction comes from their political masters. That is perhaps something that is missing in the legislation. Too often the public servants, and the public service, are the ones who take the brunt and the controversy for positions taken by the departments, the ministers particularly, and managerial positions of a higher level than the individuals providing the service. Unfortunately, in the past the government has gone down the wrong path.
I can talk about things like the gun registry. This is a policy of the government and it has been terribly mismanaged. Do not blame the public servants. Blame the leaders, the political masters, for that particular direction.
I can talk about the HRDC. Decisions were made not by the public servants who were supposed to manage those portfolios but by the political masters who sent them down the wrong path.
I think of the sponsorship scandals. An individual, who is no longer with us in the House, was given a reward by being sent to another country, but the public servants took the brunt of that.
I thank the minister for bringing forward perhaps some legislation that could put better into place some protections for those public servants as opposed to having to take the brunt for political masters.
I also am very pleased with some of the broad outlines as put forward today by the minister. Of course the public servants should have the ability to compete with private sector compensation packages. There is no question about it. We have to get the brightest and the best to ensure that we provide the best services to Canadians, and that is by way of compensation packages.
We have the labour management relationships. From another life again, I can honestly take great pride in suggesting that the best labour management relationship is one that is working toward the same goal. Yes, there will be disagreements, but sit at the table and make those disagreements go away so that everyone achieves a win-win situation. That is very positive. We have not seen that in the past. It is important that we develop those relationships, ones that are better than what they are currently. I and my colleagues will be very happy to sit at the table, to sit in committee and to listen to the positive aspects of this legislation going forward.
There are others things such as whistleblowing, as was mentioned. That is something with which we have to deal. We need to have some protections in place for those people who come forward for the betterment of the public service.
Again, I congratulate the minister and look forward to working with her at committee to ensure that we put the best legislation forward on behalf of the public service.
* * *
Canadian Coast Guard
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words regarding the Canadian Coast Guard's diving program in British Columbia.
As we know, on August 13, 2002, a tragic accident involving the Cap Rouge II claimed the lives of five people off the coast of British Columbia. Since that time I have shared with Canadians, and indeed with the House, the information and advice I received from officials about the Canadian Coast Guard's role in the incident and the dive policy in general.
Before I go further I would like to thank the leaders from all parties, and in particular the government House leader, for ensuring that the incident of the leak of the statement yesterday was indeed a single occurrence that will not be repeated and that we can continue with confidence in matters such as these.
We have undertaken a comprehensive review of the program in order to gain a full and complete picture of it. Today, as a result of this work, I am announcing that we are implementing a full time, full service, dive program at Sea Island in British Columbia.
The program will include a full dive team and backup team 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and will allow divers to enter submerged vehicles and vessels.
While we have always provided 24/7 rescue services overall, diving has been available on a limited basis. Today's announcement means that we will be working toward providing diving services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to match our overall rescue services and give citizens in the area more comprehensive coverage.
The new dive program complements the Coast Guard's search and rescue program that is second to none in the world, while at the same time providing for the safety of our divers.
(1035)
[Translation]
As I was saying a few moments ago, I am convinced that we have reviewed all the measures associated with the program since the tragic accident in August, and we have examined all the possibilities for maintaining the diving services at Sea Island.
We have also taken into account the advice we have received with regard to the Canada Shipping Act and the Canada Labour Code.
We are also endeavouring to thoroughly review to what extent additional skills would be applicable for providing support services for dives that require entry into submerged vehicles or vessels.
Truth be told, it is a complex issue that involves numerous pieces of legislation, codes and directives, as well as various federal partners and skills. The implementation of an integrated diving program will take time.
We are going to have to recruit more divers and ensure that all divers receive the necessary training and equipment to perform their duties.
In the meantime, until we have the necessary staff and the services are well established, the Coast Guard will continue to provide search and rescue services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in the sector.
[English]
I would like to assure the House that the Canadian Coast Guard's top priority remains the same as it has always been, to protect the lives of Canadians at sea. Nothing will change.
At the same time, it is imperative that our procedures are compliant with the laws that are in place to protect all Canadians, including our divers. That is why I have taken action and made an important first step toward meeting these goals and giving British Columbians the diving services they value.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the House, that my commitment to sharing information on this matter will continue as we implement the full service, full time dive program at Sea Island, British Columbia.
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to review some of the events that have led the minister to make the decision and announcement he has made in the House today.
Make no mistake, the minister would not be making these changes to the Coast Guard if fatal accidents had not forced him to take a closer look at the irresponsible cuts his department made to the funding of our Coast Guard and its rescue dive operations.
On February 16, 2001, the then minister of fisheries cancelled the rescue dive team. Two days later, Paul Sandhu died after his car plunged into the Fraser River, only 400 metres from the dive team's home base. The dive team came to the scene but were ordered not to dive. Not long afterward, the minister of fisheries ordered a review of his decision to cancel the rescue dive team.
On July 19, 2001, the fisheries minister reinstated the dive team but not as a rescue dive team. Divers were only allowed to retrieve someone floating on the surface. As a result, those trapped in submerged fishing vessels were to be written off. The divers protested. They wanted no part of it. They claimed that the rules now meant that the only person they would be able to rescue would be someone who had fallen off a dock. Divers were told to follow orders and shut up.
An internal directive on the new no dive policy dated September 3, 2001, stated:
|
...procedures have been written to comply exactly with the Minister's announcement...Penetration of submerged...vessels is prohibited, exactly as stated in the signed off Fleet Safety Manual... |
This is not open to interpretation, Mr. Speaker. It continues:
|
I would expect...divers to support our efforts to meet the requirements of the Minister's announcement as quickly as possible. |
On August 13, 2002, when the Cap Rouge II went down with the loss of five lives including a mother and her two children, the minister said that the dive team ought to have known they could have dived.
Nothing could have been further from the truth. First, the directive of September 3, 2001, made it abundantly clear there was to be no diving because the minister had ordered that there be none. Second, our Coast Guard divers could not have safely dived because their surface air equipment had been disposed of. They were forced to rely on air tanks which ran out of supply shortly after arriving at the site.
The Coast Guard talking points on the Cap Rouge II incident made it very clear that the Coast Guard did not believe in rescue diving. They state:
|
Resources must be put where they will do the most good. --It's absolutely clear that a dollar spent on prevention or surface rescue activities will do more, by far, to save lives than a dollar spent on diving. |
I hope that is not the message to the next person who is trapped in an overturned fishing vessel.
Today, the minister does not want to be held to account. He claims we should only look at his latest promises for the future. The truth is that after those two tragedies the government would have us believe that this time it is actually going to reinstate the rescue dive team.
Well, it is not so; not yet anyway. The fleet safety manual has been partially changed, but it only allows rescue dives to submerged vessels when divers have been given surface air equipment to do those dives and have been trained to use it.
While the surface air equipment has now arrived, training will not be completed for at least six months. We do not yet have a rescue dive team that is back in the business of doing rescue dives. We only have promises.
When the rescue dive team is called to the scene of an accident, our divers must have the training and equipment to make the dives and must have the authority to make that dive. I am not sure we are there yet. I pray we will be soon.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did not offer in his statement an apology to the families of those who died aboard the Cap Rouge II as a result of the funding decisions taken by his department. There was no apology offered to the divers who were ordered not to dive and who the minister publicly claimed could have dived if they had known the rules.
In closing, lives have been lost and the Coast Guard's rescue divers have been tortured by memories of events. It is high time the government once again put a priority on saving lives.
(1040)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague indicated earlier, it is important to remember that the initiative announced today by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans follows the loss of five lives on August 13, 2002, when the Cap Rouge II capsized off the coast of British Columbia.
It is indeed a good initiative, but it is unfortunate that a tragic accident had to happen before the department took action and the Government of Canada decided to invest in a training program for divers. This program will help respond to this kind of emergency in the future.
We will recall that, in November, we had a take note debate on the Canadian Coast Guard. Its underfunding was widely commented on at the time.
I feel that this organization has deficiencies, not because of the services its provides—services the people of Quebec and Canada know little about, I might add—but because of its underfunding, which is chronic. Because of the cuts made over time, the Canadian Coast Guard has become an organization with problems that need to be addressed urgently.
What happened on September 11, while it was a tragedy, was a wake up call for Canada, bringing home the important role played by the Canadian Coast Guard. Canada realized that this is an essential organization and that it is underfunded.
I congratulate the minister on the initiative he has put forward today, but I should point out that this initiative is not providing any new money to the Canadian Coast Guard. The funding earmarked for the new program, that is $300,000 now and $1 million a year thereafter, does not represent new money. It means that the CCG will have to shoulder additional costs of $1 million without money being added to its budget.
I would like to support the minister in his initiative. I hope that the Minister of Finance will invest more in the Canadian Coast Guard. This would ensure that this organization is well structured, will have the resources to operate and will be able to respond to emergencies and to the needs of the public in Canada and Quebec.
(1045)
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the federal NDP, as well as the provincial NDP of British Columbia, to thank the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his initiative today. I also wish to thank the hon. member for Richmond. My former home town of Sea Island is in his riding. I know that many people there are very pleased with the announcement today, but we still have some concerns.
Out of every tragedy, one hopes that something can be learned from it, that we can learn from the mistakes and ensure that if another tragedy happens, which in all likelihood will, the dive team in this specific case will be able to perform its function adequately and with enough resources and trained personnel in order to prevent these types of incidents from happening again.
What the minister has failed to mention is the fact that this is a reallocation of resources within the department, a department that is already starved for financial and personnel resources. That is something we have great difficulty with because this is a very important aspect of the Coast Guard. We are pleased that he has made this announcement, but what other part of the Coast Guard will have to suffer because of the transfer of allocation of resources?
We on this side of the House would encourage and support the minister wholeheartedly in his discussions with the finance minister to ensure that the Coast Guard and DFO for that matter receive the adequate resources and personnel they need to carry out the functions that they so heartily deserve for the protection of all Canadians.
We support the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for this initiative. We support the government in ensuring safety, especially in the area of Sea Island. We support the minister in acquiring future resources for the Coast Guard and DFO and to ensure that the union is fully aware of all the concerns relating to this. We want to ensure it stays within the public service of the Coast Guard. We want to ensure that not only in this area but in other aspects of the country the Coast Guard is fully prepared to meet its obligations in terms of safety for all mariners.
Again, we thank the hon. minister and encourage him to continue with this practice. We will be there to support him in any way that we can.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the minister on this initiative today. Certainly it is something that all of us in the House have looked forward to and appreciate his doing.
Let me also congratulate him on making his statement here in the House. I think it is extremely important, which was said earlier in relation to a statement made by the minister responsible for the Treasury Board who also came to the House with a statement rather than, as most ministers do, running to the press.
Here we have a chance to respond and discuss so that people across the country get the news firsthand and also can get the views of the other parties in relation to the statement.
Having said that, let me say that the statement we have before us is an extremely positive one. However, there are some concerns. The result that we will see because of the minister's decision came about because of a couple of major accidents in this area, accidents that perhaps would not have occurred if we had had clear cut lines of responsibility and jurisdiction. I think that is probably going to be the minister's greatest challenge. He acknowledges in his statement that there are complexities in relation to the rules and regulations.
The minister himself is not responsible for other departments involved, but government is. When we have rules and regulations that govern different departments, and when one department might be held up in making a decision because of the effect on some other department's legislation or regulation, it can be extremely serious. Also, it is so easy then to pass on the blame. The initiative is on government to make sure that there are clear-cut jurisdictions, particularly when it comes to life and death situations.
Also in relation to that, it is imperative that decisions in such a case be made on site. We cannot afford in a life saving situation to wait for somebody to contact Ottawa, not to say an office next door. If firemen go to fight a fire or policemen go to a dangerous situation, the decisions are made by somebody in charge on site. They do not try to call St. John's or Ottawa or Halifax to get permission to make a move to save somebody's life. These decisions have to be made immediately.
One of the problems that this young, inexperienced minister faces, and I know that he is willing to learn, is that he has a major bureaucracy in Ottawa. Too many decisions are made down the street here by people who have no idea of what is going on in the regions.
I suggest to the minister that more power should be given to the regions, with more decision making authority within the regions for responsible people who know what is going on in the regions. Then situations such as those we have experienced, which caused him to make the decision today, will never happen again.
Having said that, I congratulate the minister on the initiative. He can only work with what he has and hopefully we will see other changes which will benefit the people who work in the Coast Guard and particularly the residents of Canada themselves.
(1050)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government could inform the House when the Prime Minister will be reporting to the House on his meetings yesterday with the premiers and territorial leaders concerning health funding. Since he has not risen in his place today, should we expect a statement tomorrow?
The Prime Minister owes an explanation to the House and the people we represent--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): No, I am sorry. That is not a point of order. As tradition goes, I take it for granted that he will be here this afternoon. Questions will be asked and the Prime Minister will then supply the House and the Canadian public with the answers on health care.
* * *
[Translation]
Committees of the House
Official Languages
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108, your committee has conducted a study and held hearings on the role and responsibilities of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission in developments in the area of Official Languages in Canada. On Tuesday, February 4 it agreed to report it.
The report contains five recommendations, three of which are essentially directed at the CRTC and two at the government, on which we are calling, pursuant to the Standing Orders, to table a response within the required period.
* * *
[English]
Petitions
Stem Cell Research
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition from constituents of mine concerning reproductive technology.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.
* * *
(1055)
Child Pornography
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents in regard to child pornography. I have seen tens of thousands of names on petitions like it go through the House already. The petitioners would like to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or other perverse activities involving children are outlawed.
* * *
[Translation]
Questions on the Order Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statements government orders will be extended by 40 minutes.
Government Orders
[Supply]
* * *
[English]
Supply
Allotted Day--Military Involvement in Iraq
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) seconded by the hon. member for Châteauguay moved:
|
That, the first sitting day following a decision by the government to involve Canada in any military action to disarm Saddam Hussein, a motion, “That this House concur in the decision by the government regarding Canada's involvement in military action to disarm Saddam Hussein”, shall be deemed moved and seconded at the call of Government Orders and that any dilatory or other motion, including motions during Routine Proceedings, with the exception of requests for unanimous consent, shall not be receivable by the Chair; and that, in relation to the motion to concur in the decision by the government, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of said motion shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.”. |
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I think you would find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
|
That at the conclusion of today's opposition day debate all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put, a recorded division demanded and deferred until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, February 11, 2003. |
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent to table the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The House has heard the terms of the motion, is there unanimous consent to table the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc Quebecois for agreeing to support this motion.
[English]
Let me begin with a little history about what might be called the Shawinigan-Iraqi two-step, where the dancer must wear flip-flops.
I want to go back to 1991 to remarks by the little sparrow from Shawinigan. On January 12, 1991, The Toronto Star quoted the opposition leader as saying:
|
Mulroney has committed our troops because he likes to be friends with George Bush...I don't want to be friends with George Bush. |
Then on January 15 The Globe and Mail quoted him as saying:
|
The reality is that we're debating war tomorrow and our answer is no. |
In Hansard, January 15, 1991, the sparrow turned dove when he said:
|
If faced with an act of war, we say on this side of the House that it is premature and that our troops should not be involved in a war at this moment and our troops should be called back if there is a war. |
In that same Hansard, another statement he made was this one:
|
We say that this is not the time for war and there are other means such as sanctions, embargoes and diplomacy. |
On January 23, 1991, the dove turned into a hawk and was quoted in The Toronto Star as saying:
|
In order to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, you have to crush him. |
When there was renewed tension in the gulf in 1998, the hawk turned eagle and was quoted in The Vancouver Sun of December 17, 1998, as saying:
|
We support the bombing. Saddam Hussein got what he should have expected to get. |
From sparrow to dove to hawk to eagle, and back to a sparrow, is the evolution of the fine-feathered little bird from Shawinigan.
The motion today is as much about parliamentary reform as it is about whether action may be taken by Canada regarding Iraq. The motion calls for what Liberals demanded in 1991: that debates and votes on crucial issues take place in the people's Parliament.
I say to members opposite that real leaders are not afraid to make decisions and to put those decisions before the House for consideration. Real leaders do not fear the possibility that some of those who sit behind them in the House might have differing views.
We should look to Great Britain and the mother of parliaments. A real leader there assured that house that before any final decision is taken, the matter will be debated and voted in that parliament. That is real leadership, and real leadership is what we are lacking on the other side of the House. The last time the present Prime Minister showed any concern for democracy, or consistency in expressing his concern, was when he was the opposition leader.
Questions of war should never be taken lightly. Nor should careless and ideological accusations be hurled at other national leaders. Nobody in the responsible international community lusts for war, as the New Democrats would say. The New Democrats can position themselves all they want with their diminished constituency, but to make such cruel statements and attribute such motives to the President of the United States or the Labour Party Prime Minister of Great Britain is simply wrong and reckless. To make such accusations is cheap political posturing whether it comes from those on the far left or from the remote reaches of the government's backbenches. Then again, vacuums are created when real leadership is lacking.
Real leaders do not stumble into war. They take a position and subject it to debate and a vote in the nation's supreme law making body, this Parliament. When tyrants, despots, mass murderers and brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein threaten world stability, responsible nations must brace for war. When individuals such as Saddam Hussein give support and succour to international terrorists or field their own teams of terrorists, responsible nations must brace for war.
The fundamental failure of the Liberal government is the Prime Minister's refusal to make clear whether Canada will participate in any possible action against Saddam Hussein. Canadians do not know if the Liberal government will participate only if the United Nations Security Council approves action or if the government will participate in concert with our allies, the United States, Great Britain, Australia and many others. Canadians deserve to know.
(1100)
These are not easy or simple questions deserving easy or simple answers. They are very serious and should be debated fully in the people's Parliament and decided by a vote of all hon. members in the House.
Let me stress that such serious decisions should be accompanied by a debate and a vote in the House of Commons, but a motion to participate in any action in Iraq should be brought before the House by the government to enable a debate. In other words, real leadership should be demonstrated by the government and the way to demonstrate that is to support the motion that is before the House today.
A take note debate is not a substitute because it does not allow for a vote. A take note debate is really a pat on the head for Liberal backbenchers. Tragically, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government avoid responsibilities of governing so it falls to the opposition to do the right thing with the motion today.
The purpose of the motion is to ensure that when a decision is made with regard to Iraq the matter will be brought before the House for a debate and a vote. Let me go back to January 17, 1991 to see what the current government House leader had to say about Canada's role in the gulf war.
First he criticized the government for not recalling the House sooner for debate on the actions Canada would take against Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait. Later in the same speech, he said he had a right, and his constituents had a right, to have a fundamental question posed and that all members had the right to speak to the question. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The current government House leader does not want the debate today that he wanted 12 years ago. What made him change? Is it that Liberal arrogance getting into the government? In opposition he wanted the debate. He wanted a vote, but not today.
When he sat on this side, he demanded that every member of the House be given an opportunity to speak to and vote on the issue. So it falls to the official opposition, with the support of other opposition parties, to try to bring a little democracy to this place by giving hon. members the opportunity to speak to and vote on this issue.
On January 17, 1991 the current government House leader, the great defender of democracy, a standard bearer for political hypocrisy, argued that the government should have put a motion with a point blank question on the gulf war at that time. He said the question should have been, “do we or do we not as a country want to participate in these hostilities when they begin or if they do begin?” He argued that a very specific question be put to the House.
What we want today is what the government House leader wanted then. We want to vote today for a vote later when the government finally shows some leadership and makes a decision.
Just to make it clear that he was not the only one involved in that debate, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the former finance minister, was dancing as only he can dance and wringing his hands. He asked the Prime Minister for assurances that our safety here at home would not be jeopardized.
We wonder where the great parliamentary reformer is today and what he will do on this democratic question that he talks about across Canada, democracy in the House of Commons. Is he prepared to support the notion that Parliament is too important to be ignored by the Prime Minister?
I hope my friends in the media will ask him where he stands on the idea that Parliament should debate this important question and then have a vote on it. They might also ask him how it feels to be straddling a sharp political picket fence while standing on icy and shaky ground.
Back then when the government was in opposition, it was important to the Liberals that all Canadians know precisely where all parties and all individual members of Parliament stood. Today it is important to the Liberals that Canadians do not know where they stand until all the lights are on and the corner in which they are hiding is illuminated.
The question must be asked, why was it good for Canada 12 years ago when the Liberals were in opposition but it is not good for Canada today? Why should the House have had a clear question put to it 12 years ago but should not have a clear question put today?
(1105)
Canadians can only wonder because the Liberal government is not about to enlighten them. All the responsible nations in the international community must believe today that United Nations action is just and urgent. All the democratic governments of the international community have made certain that all sides in their various legislative assemblies have had an opportunity to express their opinions.
There is no reason for Canada to continue waffling, and ducking and dodging on whether we will support our allies. This is not what Canadians want or what they deserve. There is no reason other than the fear of the Prime Minister to deny the House its democratic right to a free and open debate followed by a vote. His fear, indecisiveness and contempt for Parliament and his own Liberal members does an injustice to both Parliament and to all of its members.
It would seem to most reasonable people that the clarity of UN resolution 1441 does not require an additional resolution. It may well be for other reasons, however, that an additional resolution will be necessary but that is mere housekeeping. The real question is whether the Liberal government is prepared to concede to Parliament its hard-won democratic right to debate and vote on questions of great national concern.
The next question is whether the House will concur in the decision by the government regarding Canada's involvement in military action to disarm Saddam Hussein. History does repeat.
In December 1990 the Liberals were demanding that Prime Minister Mulroney recall the House to debate Canada's participation in the Persian Gulf action. Their leader, the current Prime Minister, was explicit and said that the real question should be whether we should participate in the war, yes or no, and have a vote. He expressed admiration for the United States where politicians were given the chance to vote on almost exactly that same question. What a change. He wanted a vote in opposition, but as Prime Minister he does not trust his own backbench.
The prime minister back then, Brian Mulroney, had more respect for democracy and Parliament than does the current Prime Minister. Prime Minister Mulroney promised that if it came to war, he would go to the House of Commons, explain it and examine with hon. members certain alternatives for Canada.
The problem here is that Liberals under the Prime Minister, in or out of government, have never been open and honest with the Canadian people. They were not open and honest with Canadians in the 1991 conflict. They are not being open and honest with Canadians today about what actions, if any, will be taken by Canada.
Our international reputation is suffering because of the indecisiveness of the Liberals. Caution can be a virtue but indecisiveness is a weakness. We see, and Canadians recognize, that weak leaders and weak governments fear democracy. Never has a government in Canada feared Parliament like the Liberal government does.
Let me conclude with remarks made by my leader last October:
|
Canadians rightfully and sensibly do not seek war for war's sake. Canadians do not want to see war waged on the basis of propaganda. Canadians do want to see Canada's national security interests and long held values in international diplomacy upheld. The position taken by the Canadian Alliance in its role as official opposition conforms to all three of these conditions. |
Our motion seeks to compensate for the Liberal government's lack of resolve and refusal to be clear and straightforward with Canadians. I would urge all members of the House to give our motion thoughtful consideration. It is intended to do what the Liberals demanded in 1991, that is, to allow Canadians to speak to this issue through their representatives in their Parliament. It simply states that when the government commits our troops, a debate will be held in Parliament and members will be called upon to either support or not support the government's decision. This is what democracy is all about.
The government has talked in its throne speech about openness, democracy and the modernization of Parliament. Certainly there is not one Canadian outside the House that does not think that their members of Parliament should be voting on whether this country goes to war. I would urge all those Liberals, and the minister who I understand is going to speak in this debate, to assure the House today that they will support this motion and make sure that Canadians will have a better respect for democracy than what they are getting so far.
(1110)
I am sure the former finance minister, who has been making speeches on democracy all across Canada, telling everyone that when he is the prime minister there will be more democracy in the House, will be talking to his people. When he was in opposition, like the Prime Minister, he demanded a vote on whether or not we went to war. If his people support this motion with the opposition, it will pass.
Hopefully it will not come to that. I hope that next Tuesday at 3:00, the 301 members of this House will vote for democracy and make sure there is a vote before Canada goes to war.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois supports this motion because we have been calling for a vote in this House right from the start.
I would just like to ask the hon. member the following question. Is it not indicative of a considerable democratic deficit that the opposition parties are the ones obliged to make such a request in order to have their right to vote respected?
When we were elected, we all said we would represent our constituents here. In the opinion of my colleague who has moved this motion, is it not somewhat of a denial of democracy that the government is not the one taking the first step, on its own initiative, and calling upon the members of this House to vote on a matter of such complexity?
We can see that this situation is terribly worrying to everyone in Quebec and in Canada. The vast majority of men and women are following it very closely and are highly critical of the American position.
In the end, would not the Canadian government deserve to be faulted for not being the one to initiate such a vote?
(1115)
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is absolutely right. The government has been asked this question. The government House leader has been standing up day after day quoting all the wars we did not have a vote on, but there has been a vote in this country on all the major wars. This is a major war we are talking about, if it happens.
It is hypocrisy while in opposition to demand votes on this same issue and even in the same area. The government House leader and the Prime Minister, when in opposition, demanded that the Mulroney government have votes and they were given a vote.
The former minister of finance when travelling the country since he was fired or quit cabinet, whatever the story is, to run for his leadership bid to become prime minister, has been talking about democratic deficits in Parliament. He has been saying that even private members' business should have votes, on which we agree with him. In fact most of the democratic deficit he talks about comes right out of our books that we gave to Parliament on the changes we think should take place.
We want to know where he is going to be on this issue. We know from other votes we have held in the House, like the election of chairs of committees, that if his group decides to support something, it usually means the vote will pass. I am sure if he wants to be prime minister he will show Canadians right now the leadership he will bring by saying, “Yes, my members will vote to have a vote”. I find it astounding that the government would not allow a vote.
I find it outstanding that the government would not believe that also, but maybe I will give the Minister of Foreign Affairs a standing ovation if, during his speech, he says that he will make sure that we have a vote before Canada goes to war. I am hoping he will say that so we can stand up and give him that ovation, but I am concerned that I do not see him waving at me, smiling and saying he will do it.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is any secret that there are very few issues on which my party agrees with the Alliance's position on major issues of the day and we certainly do not agree with its eagerness to support George Bush, uncritically, in the matter of an attack on Iraq.
However the Alliance should be commended for bringing forward an issue on which, not only do opposition members absolutely agree but a great many members on the government side support as well, and that is the necessity for all parliamentarians to vote on the issue of military involvement in any possible attack on Iraq.
Unlike the current Prime Minister, foreign affairs minister and most frontbenchers, apparently many backbench Liberals continue to support the position that the Liberal official opposition took 12 years ago which was that it was unthinkable for there not to be a vote.
I have two brief questions for the member. One question concerns the decision to seek a vote only on the first sitting day of Parliament. This could imply a delay of weeks or months before any such opportunity would arise. I mean if the House had gone into recess officially a sitting day would mean that. I am sure that is not the intention of the Alliance. I hope the member will address that question.
Second, it seems like a very after the fact way to have parliamentarians officially express their view on any decision by Canada to engage in military action in Iraq. Should we not be seeking an opportunity to have a vote on the final decision informing the government and not an after the fact rubber stamp one way or another?
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the former leader of the New Democratic Party, yes, we do not agree on many things but we both agree on democracy and that there should be votes on major issues in the House.
I do not mind saying that I think George Bush is a good president, unlike the NDP who do not like him at all. My party also fully supports the resolution of the United Nations.
The motion does say on “the first sitting day”. However, after discussions with our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, they will be moving an amendment, with our permission, to replace the words “first sitting day” with “the first day”. This would give the Speaker time to recall the House if the House were not sitting.
I think the Bloc position, which is probably the exact opposite to ours and opposite to how we might vote in the House, is a good example of how all of us together believe in democracy and believe in having a vote in the House. We will work together to make sure we get that.
With regard to the fact that it might be after the fact and that the government should know our positions, we are having this debate today and we have had take note debates in which the government has had the opportunity to know the positions of all members of Parliament.
However, governments do have the right to make decisions. They are the executive. When the government makes a decision, we think we have the right to have a vote on it.
Also, hypothetical motions cannot be moved in the House. If we were to try to move a hypothetical motion it would be ruled out of order by the Speaker. In talking to all of the parliamentary experts, such as the clerks and our people who are experts in this, the motion we have brought forward today is proper.
Governments do have a right to make decisions, we grant them that right. They were elected by the majority of Canadians. However governments are not doing a good job if they do not allow the House to have votes on the decisions they make.
(1120)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, as a follow-up to my first question, I would like to ask the hon. member if he does not believe, as I do, that this issue cannot wait to be decided by the electorate in another two or three years when it is time for a general election.
There are bills that could be debated. The parties are for or against, and the electorate decides in the end, at the end of the mandate, if the government deserves to be returned to office or if another party deserves to take its place.
However, on an issue such as war, which concerns the lives of men and women, of Canadians and Quebeckers who would have to go to fight a war, on an issue where the very legitimacy of this war must also be decided, is it not terrible that the government is acting in such a way that the people's opinion, via their elected representatives, cannot be taken into consideration before the decision is made? This must be clearly stated, and it must be possible to bring public pressure when the decision is being made and not at the end of the mandate.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, we were all elected by the public but the government was elected with a majority which gives it the right to make decisions, but it should be listening to Canadians.
The debate we are having in the House today and the take note debate we had last week allows Canadians to make up their minds. Colin Powell's statement on television yesterday allows people to know more of what is happening with the United States and its dealings with the United Nations.
I definitely have respect for the fact that the government was elected with a majority, has a majority in the House and has the right to make decisions for Canada, but I also feel very strongly that every member of the House has a right to speak on it and have a vote on it, and that is what this issue is about.
Whether we are in favour of going to war when the time comes to make that decision, we should all have a say in the House. If the opposition and enough Liberals were opposed to it and it were defeated then so would the government be defeated.
If the member is wondering how quick we could be in an election, this would be a matter of confidence in the government making a major decision. This is where it takes the courage of a leader to tell us what needs to be done and for his members to support that and vote for it. If they do not, then he has a problem.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Durham.
The debate today provides us with another opportunity to consider our country's approach to the current crisis in Iraq. I am looking forward to the debate, which will doubtless ensue in the way the previous debates have done, and I think, as the House leader of the official opposition rightly pointed out in his recent comments, has enabled us in the House to debate these issues, to discuss them and to enable the Canadian public to have a better understanding of the very issues that are before us today.
The contributions made by parliamentarians on this issue have been substantial. The government has profited greatly from the discussions in the House, in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, where I was this morning, and in conversations we have all had in recent weeks with individual members.
Today I would like to share with the House the latest development of our country's position following my meeting with Secretary Powell in Washington last week and his report yesterday to the Security Council.
The contribution I can make to this debate, I believe, is to frame our discussion today by touching on some of the substantive issues before us.
In the past few weeks diplomatic efforts, including those of the government, have been intensifying as the international community focuses on the essential issue: the need for Iraq to meet its international obligations by disarming.
Our objective is the complete elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations, including Security Council resolution 1441.
There is no doubt for us that the UN remains the best way to pursue this goal. We will continue to work with our friends and allies to pursue diplomatic efforts in that direction. The government of Iraq must understand the clear message being sent by the international community. The only way for this crisis to be resolved peacefully is for Iraq's full, active and unconditional co-operation with the weapons inspection process. The choice is clearly up to Iraq.
As I indicated to the House last week, the question we have to collectively address here is how we can have Iraq disarm consistent with resolution 1441, and that remains very much still today before the Security Council. I believe there is a need for the international community to speak with one voice at this critical time through the Security Council.
We saw last week that eight member states of the European Union came together to declare their support for strong transatlantic relations and for unity on the question of Iraq. They stated:
|
The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this [Iraq's disarmament] peacefully. Our strength lies in unity. |
Their unwavering support for resolution 1441 and the Security Council echoes Canada's efforts over the past few months.
We also place great weight on the importance of relations across the Atlantic and a strong and unified position on Iraq at this time. History shows that when Europe and North America work together we can respond to even the most difficult challenges, including those we face today, whether that is the campaign against terrorism or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Unfortunately, the current reality is that Iraq continues to avoid full compliance with resolution 1441. Dr. Blix made it clear last week in his update to the Security Council that more active co-operation was required by Iraq. Secretary Powell's report to the UN Security Council yesterday made it even more clear that Iraq was not yet fully complying with the inspections process.
Resolution 1441, operative paragraph 4, clearly stipulates:
|
--failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment.... |
At this point, time is running out for Iraq and the diplomatic pressure is intensifying.
The Prime Minister and I have been consulting with our allies and partners. During this week alone I have spoken by phone to my colleagues from Spain, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Turkey, Egypt and the European Union. Despite some differences of approach, I can tell the members of the House and assure them that all are agreed on the need for Saddam Hussein to disarm and the need to maintain the international pressure on him to do so. They all support the role of the United Nations in this process.
I indicated to my counterparts that the international community must remain united in maintaining diplomatic pressure on Iraq. I assure members that the government will remain resolutely engaged in this cause.
(1125)
Parliament plays an important role in our management of this issue. The many debates and discussions that have been held in recent days are testament to the engagement of Parliament and the interest and concern of the Canadian people on this question.
Just this morning I had an excellent meeting regarding Iraq with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The committee raised some very interesting points regarding the process we are in and I look forward today to hearing the views, as do all members of the government, from all sides of the House on this key international question.
[Translation]
As you know, I also had the opportunity to meet with Secretary of State Powell in Washington a week ago. The meeting went very well and I was able to reiterate Canada's position; that this issue must continue to be handled by the United Nations, and that the decisions made by our country would reflect the will of the international community as expressed at the Security Council.
Secretary of State Powell and the United States government understand and respect Canada's position. Friendship and alliance does not mean that two sovereign nations must adopt identical approaches in all cases. In the case of Iraq, we have the same objective, which is the complete and verifiable disarmament of Iraq.
Yesterday at the Security Council, Secretary of State Powell made a compelling presentation showing that Iraq is not complying with resolution 1441. He presented information that only lengthens the list of unanswered questions with regard to Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.
I congratulate Mr. Powell and the U.S. government for bringing forward more information on this matter and presenting the international community with their point of view and the intelligence gathered by their country so that the UN Security Council can make a sound decision.
The next major step in this matter and in this process is the return of Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei to Iraq on February 8 in order to obtain greater cooperation from Iraq. They will submit their report to the Security Council on February 14.
I would like to underscore, once again, the excellent work done by the UN inspectors in this difficult undertaking. They have demonstrated the utmost professionalism in ensuring that Iraq has one last chance to comply. We maintain that if the chief inspectors are asking for more time to do their work, then they must be given more time.
We are proud of the support Canada has given to the inspections and the inspectors. However, additional time will serve no purpose if Iraq does not cooperate fully, actively and sincerely. The situation is very different than it was in the 1990s; Iraq's deception will no longer be tolerated.
(1130)
[English]
There was much debate in the House last week, and there is much discussion now, on the possibility of a second resolution. In fact there is a need to state clearly and unequivocally once again to Iraq the will of the international community. Canada supports such an approach.
However, resolution 1441 has already made Iraq's obligations very clear and it enables us to address two very important questions. First, is Iraq in violation of its international obligations? The answer to this is becoming increasingly clear through the inspection process, through the report of Dr. Blix, and now through Secretary Powell's report yesterday. Iraq quite evidently is failing to comply fully, actively and openly with the inspections process.
That raises the second question of whether Iraq's failure to comply justifies the use of force at this time. Resolution 1441 provides for serious consequences in the case of Iraq's failure to comply. The nature of those consequences and the conditions when they would apply still remains to be determined however as the process of gathering information is underway.
Dr. Blix is returning to Iraq and will be meeting with Saddam Hussein next week. On February 14 he will report back again to the security council. If we are then told that Iraq continues to be in non-compliance a debate will ensue in the international community about the appropriate measures to take.
Clearly, we all want to avoid war and there is still a window for war to be avoided if Iraq chooses to change its approach and cooperate fully. The timeline is a short one and the need to take a decision will not be deferred forever.
This has been the consistent position of the Canadian government and it has been the voice of Canada on the world stage throughout the Iraqi crisis to support this process. The international leaders we have spoken to tell us they all value our independent stance in this respect, supportive of an important multilateral approach to a multilateral issue.
We fully intend to ensure that Canada continues to advance a foreign policy reflecting Canadian values by sticking with the UN process and the international community in the weeks and months ahead.
(1135)
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister's speech was interesting as it outlined the government's position, but it did not answer the question of the day. Will his government give us a vote when the government makes a decision whether to go to war or not?
Hon. Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's remarks and particularly his comments about the process of the engagement in the House.
I quite agree. I found the debate the other night more than constructive. I thought it was an excellent debate. It was an opportunity where we really engaged ourselves. There were differences of opinion, all of which were legitimate, as we tried to figure out what the best course was for our country to take. We understand and the Canadian public understands where we are going.
In that sense, I believe that the process of debating and considering this matter in the House has been a most constructive contribution to understanding the collective will of Canadian people about how to approach this problem.
I will defer to the House leader who will be speaking later in the debate about the procedural requirements and the procedural way in which we will be dealing with this issue.
Therefore, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I hope to be able to bring some contribution to the debate by stating the substantive issues we have before us.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to have this opportunity. The minister this morning came to our committee and said in his initial statement that Parliament had an important role in the Iraq solution. If Parliament does have an important role, the first thing we should be able to do is to vote on whether we participate or not.
When I was here in 1991 we were debating whether we would have a vote or not and the Liberal position then from his predecessor, Lloyd Axworthy, was very strong. Day after day, his predecessor demanded a vote in the House and he got one. The Conservatives gave a vote in the House, so we voted on our participation in that Iraq war.
When did the government change its policy? When did the foreign policy change on this? His predecessor was just the reverse of the present minister.
Hon. Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my response to the previous question, the House leader will be speaking to the specific issue on the resolution before the House today and will provide an answer to the hon. member in terms of the government's position.
However, I do not see any inconsistency in insisting that we have the debates in the House to fully clarify what our positions are to enable parties to put forward their positions and enable individual members to share their experience and to discuss these very important issues. We have had very full consideration of that.
The government has been consistent in its approach to these issues. We have consistently engaged the House in more discussions, more debates, and more ability to exchange views. We have tried to change the procedure to enable that and to be more productive. We have tried to ensure that time is allocated to the House to allow debates. That is the consistent policy of the government and we should recognize that.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave a lovely speech. However, I believe he must answer one major question this morning. I have two caveats.
First, this war, which is very likely to occur under the current circumstances, again, has no legitimacy for a great many Canadians and Quebeckers
The latest polls show that with UN support, 46% of people support a war. In Quebec, 49% of people oppose any war. This conflict has not acquired legitimacy.
The second caveat is that the government has not excluded military support for the United States without a second resolution.
My question is this: only once before the Liberals came to power in 1993 have troops been deployed abroad without a vote, and that was when Trudeau sent them to Lebanon. In every other case, there was a vote in the House. In a conflict that is not legitimate, when he could involve us without a second UN resolution, the minister—
(1140)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but her time has expired. The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we can say that if war was declared today, it would not be legitimate. But it is necessary to follow the process. This is what we have always said, and not one party in this House thinks that war will be declared without the UN process being followed. That is what Colin Powell did yesterday.
He asked that Hans Blix return to Iraq to give that country a chance to respond. The UN chief inspector will return before the Security Council. That is the process. As in any war, if war is declared, and we all hope it can be averted, the process will have to be followed. The process continues. Let us not pass judgment on the legitimacy of the process until it is complete. Let us not be premature. The legitimacy is in the process of Mr. Blix. Let us wait until he returns before the Security Council.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to enter into this extremely important debate. I first want to thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast for bringing his motion forward today, which has helped further the debate in the House of Commons. I know we have had some initial debate, but it is such an important issue that I believe it needs to be more fully discussed.
With respect to the whole issue of resolution 1441 by the United Nations, clearly some of the current evidence tends to strongly support the position that there is a question of non-compliance by the state of Iraq to the intentions of the United Nations. I think the problem for a lot of international communities is the non-compliance somehow then translates into moving us directly into a confrontation involving war. I question whether that is a natural evolutionary process. I believe all sane-minded people would want to prevent conflict and war. I believe it is really more of an opportunity for Iraq to reconsider its position and for the international community to find ways to avoid this.
I know I speak for many of my constituents when I say that when we entered the 21st century we believed the cold war was over. We believed that we were entering into an unprecedented time of peace. Now we find ourselves a short three years later on the precipice of war. I know I speak for my constituents who have great consternation with that approach and believe there is a better way.
People have questioned time and time again whether we are really friends of the United States. I think we are its best friend, but I do not believe that friends always have to agree. Friends can have disagreements, which can be very constructive.
I am very concerned about the regime in the United States called the national doctrine, which was entered into by the president and accepted by Congress. It more or less lays out the U.S. foreign policy. It is interesting and I will read a few lines from the policy. It states:
|
In keeping with our heritage and principles... We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors humanfreedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewardsand challenges of political and economic liberty. |
It goes on to state:
|
--the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedomacross the globe. We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, freemarkets, and free trade to every corner of the world. |
It may sound like brave new worlds in the 21st century.
I harken back to another document that states:
|
America is destined for better deeds. It is our unparalleled glory that we have no reminiscences of battle fields, but in defence of humanity, of the oppressed of all nations, of the rights of conscience, the rights of personal enfranchisement. |
|
We have no interest in the scenes of antiquity, only as lessons of avoidance of nearly all their examples. The expansive future is our arena, and for our history. |
This sounds very similar to the national doctrine. It is a statement by John O'Sullivan, back in 1839, who wrote of the whole concept of the manifest destiny of the United States. This has led to so many wars, both within the United States and within the western hemisphere, even in conflict with this country because the United States at one time had a presidential election based on the theory of fifty-four forty or fight. In other words, it was a conquest of Canada's sovereign area as well.
(1145)
Because of that we are very concerned that the United States is prepared to enter into this in a unilateral framework. To support that, I go back to the national doctrine which says:
|
--identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders...we will not hesitate to act alone,if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defence by acting preemptively... |
This doctrine entitles the United States to attack any country in the world that it preconceives to be a threat to it. While I suppose some of us might argue that a country has a right to self-defence, it is a difficult and unusual concept of international diplomacy that we would sanction a doctrine which gives a country the right to attack any country. We are talking about country of Iraq. I think that most people--
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that one of the rules of debate in the House is that of relevance. I recognize that the member is talking to the issue of what the foreign affairs minister referred to as the key international question. The motion today specifically is on the key Canadian parliamentary question, not on the issue of whether the U.S. should go to war without the sanctions of the UN, and all the doctrines about which the member is talking.
Could the member address the issue of should the House have the ability to vote on whether Canada goes to war?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I do not know if at some point in time the hon. member for Durham will tie in his remarks to the motion at hand, but the message has been made to him and we all expect to hear his views on it.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the opposition would want to interrupt a debate which is profound to the parliamentary governance issue. For members of Parliament to stand in this place and vote on something as profound as whether we go to war, surely we would want to have a debate on the merits of that. I am surprised at the member. He simply wants to say yes or no today to that issue. This seems to be part of the Alliance's basic foreign policy, that we should go to war based on a simple yes or no. It is not as simple as that. We are talking about something very profound.
What is the long term agenda? What happens when we make that decision, when we vote in the House and vote for confrontation? What is the long term result of that situation in the Middle East? What happens when a hundred thousand Iraqi citizens are killed? If we have this great build up of military might in the Middle East, there must be some other rogue regimes there with which we are not very happy. Where does it all end? It is not as simple as saying shall we vote on having a war today. We have to think of the long term consequences of that.
Quite frankly, the whole motion may well be hypothetical because we are not even at the stage of discussing whether Canada should enter this conflict. Maybe the House leader will put some of those arguments before us. I question whether the motion itself, because of its hypothetical nature, should be voted on in the House.
We are debating the motion before us today. I am happy to go back to looking at the consequences of the policy the United States has entered into, this so-called national doctrine. I hear people in this town in particular say that anybody who objects to that must be anti-American. I do not believe that for one moment. I think we are pro-American.
When the word conflict is added to the fear and the combination of religion and poverty in that part of the world, we enter into a significant period of aggression. The kinds of detriment that could be caused in this country and others are not from nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. Rather, anyone who has a paint factory could create chemicals which could annihilate huge sections of populations wherever they may be.
I and my constituents are very concerned. I am before the House representing my constituents. I want to convey to the House the concerns of the people of Durham. Not only do they not want to go war, nobody ever wants to go war, but they also do not want to be committed to a long term aggression where their personal safety is also on the line and where the safety of our men and women in our armed forces is in jeopardy over an issue such as this.
The United States is not talking about disarming India. India and Pakistan are probably more of a threat to world peace than Iraq. We know North Korea has nuclear weapons and we are not talking about a war on North Korea. We are talking about war on Iraq. The issue with Iraq is these people are more of a threat to their own people than they are to the rest of the world, and that was my point.
We have to give the United Nations greater time to work and our responses to that have to be proportional to the threat of war.
(1150)
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, clearly, the member and I may have differences of opinion on a number of issues. Unfortunately, the member did not clearly understand the reason why I brought up the point of order. I will try to be more precise in my question.
It was the belief of the gentleman, who is now the Prime Minister of Canada, when he was the leader of the opposition, it was the belief of the gentleman who is currently the House leader for Liberals, when he was a member of the opposition, and it is our belief that the House has a responsibility to bring the views, wishes, desires and the direction that we receive from our constituents along with our ability to think independently to this chamber and to vote on the question of whether Canada should go to war.
Therefore my question is not on the content of the member's speech. My question is precisely on the point: should the House be given the opportunity to have a vote on Canada going to war? A simple answer would suffice.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I am going to defer to my House leader. That may be thought of as a cop-out but the reality is that this debate is much more important than debating the semantics and workings of the House.
It is important to get our message across to the people of Canada and more important, to get their message into this place. We have been limited on the amount of time we have had to debate the whole issue. I have been frustrated and I am sure many other members have been also, to bring the issues of Canadians to the House. I am more concerned about that than I am about having a simple vote. We have to have more opportunity to vet this issue for the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I find it rather contradictory for a member to talk about his fellow citizens and then make such a statement. I cannot believe that your fellow citizens are different from my fellow citizens. They do not want us to merely debate the issue, they want us to vote. They want you to represent their views on whether or not to send soldiers to war and what we ought to do. There has to be a vote.
The motion by the Canadian Alliance is clear. Your government and you, as a government member, claim to be listening to your fellow citizens. Your fellow citizens are asking that you vote, not just debate.
(1155)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Durham, I will remind the hon. member for Châteauguay that remarks must always be addressed to the Chair, not directly to other members.
The hon. member for Durham.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, once again we could propose votes on just about anything in the House but the reality is we are not even close to making a decision about sending troops to anywhere for that matter. It is incumbent on to us to debate the whole issue of whether we should be going down that road at all. I dispute the premise of the member's question because I believe it is premature to even be talking about a vote that would send Canadian troops anywhere.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the day will come when the people in the front row on the government side, because they are the government, will make a decision. They will decide either to go to war or to not go to war, or some other decision along those lines.
The motion says that after the government makes that decision every member in this Parliament should have the opportunity to concur in that decision through a vote. That is called democracy. Does the member believe in democracy, that we should concur in that decision with a vote?
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, certainly I believe in democracy. The recognition is that this is a majority government, that it has the support of the people generally, and the executive of that governing body is entitled to make decisions which affect the country.
I am sure within their wisdom the time will come when they will possibly want to go back and consult with people through the House as well. But there are many different ways of consulting the people; there is the House but there are also other venues within the general population.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my hon. colleagues that my speech will focus on the fundamental reasons for which I feel, particularly in relation to this conflict, parliamentarians must get to vote.
In this new millennium which, for many, started with the events of September 11, 2001, one superpower is dominating the world economically, culturally, militarily and politically, and this superpower is our neighbour and friend.
The international community, Canada, Quebec and each of us individually, must strenuously affirm that might does not make right. As imperfect as it may be, the United Nations is the seat of international law. This has been especially true and necessary since this war of civilizations, which we oppose with all our being, was announced.
But to oppose war is not enough. To many the twin towers tumbling down in New York revealed the existence of not only al-Qaeda, but also some twenty or more such international terrorist groups. We have seen them at work recently.
We know that the war against international terrorism will be long term, that it will involve combating inequality around the world, as well as hunger and injustices, and resolving the conflict in the Middle East. We know that war on international terrorism will not be won, be it in Iraq or elsewhere, even with 150,000 troops and sophisticated equipment. In the name of peace, such conflicts claim thousands of innocent lives in the civilian population, and at the same time they set the stage for extremists with a death wish.
To win the war, as was done in Afghanistan, is one thing. But those who take an interest in it know that this war may not be totally over. Fighting was recently reported. Numerous Taliban groups are fighting at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
However, what the international community was seeking was to establish the conditions necessary for peace and democracy to be maintained in Afghanistan. This is a completely different story. The current situation in Afghanistan shows us that while the war may have been won, peace is far from restored, and the conditions for democracy are still far off.
Recent information submitted to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, indicates that currently it is not safe anywhere in Afghanistan, except in the city of Kabul. There are sections of that city too where soldiers are known to steal and rape. Outside of Kabul, warlords have resumed control. Sharia is the reigning law.
I have just been told that I should have indicated to the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean.
So, it is not safe anywhere except in Kabul. Without security, there can be no freedom, rights, or justice. The case of the Chair of the Human Rights Committee, Sima Simar, is a good example. She is the subject of a Fatwa and has been reduced to almost complete inactivity. The Supreme Court, assigned the task of establishing tribunals throughout the region, is presided over by a judge who does not meet the requirements of the new constitution of Afghanistan. He had not been there for two years, but was closely linked to the disturbances in Afghanistan.
Far from preparing the conditions for democracy, and without the billions of dollars promised for reconstruction, Afghanistan is in a difficult situation. Why mention this again? Because on the eve of a war that promises to bring peace, democracy and security to Iraq, we must look at what has been done recently. War is a last resort that—since the adoption of the UN charter—can only be lawfully used under the aegis of the United Nations.
(1200)
Furthermore, according to law, a pre-emptive war may only be started when there is an established and imminent threat.
I point all this out because this conflict has not acquired legitimacy, even with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation, with all due respect to him. It has not been established that Saddam Hussein is a threat to world peace right now, or even that he is an urgent threat.
This lack of legitimacy is widespread in Europe and not one country there seems to have changed its position following yesterday's presentation. Time will tell, but the public may not be on the verge of changing their mind. In Europe, 82% of people are against a war, and in Canada, as I already said, 46% of people are opposed, even with a second UN resolution. In Quebec, 49% of people are against any war.
What about the way Muslims view this war? Like it or not, if Iraq did not sit atop the second largest oil reserve in the world, there probably would not be 150,000 soldiers heading for the region.
The fight against terrorism, which we cannot escape, absolutely must involve a broad coalition, including Arab and Muslim countries. An attack against Iraq under the current circumstances, without a new explicit decision from the United Nations and without providing proof, would only make the fight against terrorism extremely difficult. I am not referring to leaders of countries, but their citizens.
Because of this, we need more proof than we were shown yesterday to launch—with the support of the UN, but especially without its support—a full-blown war such as the one announced by the Pentagon with 3,000 bombs in 48 hours, before troops would enter Baghdad.
It is important to continue the inspections, which have been effective in the past. According to Charles-Philippe David, a frequent commentator in Quebec:
|
The surprise UN inspections seem to have produced tangible results. UNSCOM has destroyed more material used for weapons of mass destruction since 1991 than the entire coalition army did during the gulf war of 1991. |
And I have more figures. We will also need to wait for the report of the chief inspectors. But I would like to recall Hans Blix's comments to the New York Times. I was much moved by these comments, which I will have to read in English:
(1205)
[English]
|
Mr. Blix said he continued to endorse disarmament through peaceful means. |
[Translation]
“Mr. Blix said he still supports disarmament through peaceful means.” This is my own loose translation. “I think that it would be terrible if this situation ended in military action, and I hope that disarmament continues through peaceful means”.
That is why Saddam Hussein must be pressured, and that is why inspections and peace must be given every opportunity to succeed. Even with a second resolution, this conflict's legitimacy will not be easily accepted by everyone, not by any means.
That is why, even if the Security Council votes for a second resolution ensuring international law, the Bloc Quebecois is more than ever committed to holding a vote in the House where the parties could say if they thought that our participation in war should be supported because we considered that war legitimate. Each party, and perhaps each individual member, has the duty and the responsibility to represent the electorate and to vote on such an important question, which is related not only to a conflict but to the advancement of peace throughout the world.
In closing, pursuant to Standing Order 85, I move:
|
That the motion be amended by adding between the words “Hussein” and “a motion” the following: |
|
“or, in the event the decision is made while the House stands adjourned, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the Speaker shall convene the House at the earliest opportunity,”. |
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order.
The hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Mercier for her speech, which clearly shows not only how concerned she is with this situation but also how well she grasps all the information and nuances surrounding it.
I would like to ask her a question that refers perhaps more to the motion per se on the necessity of a vote in the House on this matter. When we were campaigning for election, not one of us did so on the platform “We will go to the House and, if possible, avoid voting on any controversial questions, particularly anything to do with war”. It seems to me that all members, regardless of party allegiance, hoped that once they were elected they would be able to really speak out on essential matters.
I would like the hon. member for Mercier, history buff that she is, to give us a bit of the historical background on the votes that have been held in this House in connection with war situations.
I would like her to tell us if this has indeed always been a practice of the Liberal government since 1993, or whether there was not a different tradition in the past, one that merits reviving.
(1210)
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. His constituents have every reason to be proud of his work.
We did some research in my office, and a good thing. We found, and this was a pleasant surprise, that despite what the government is saying, since 1914 there has only been one time, under the Trudeau government, when troops were sent to take part in a conflict without a vote first being held. That is the only time when a vote was not held in the House on this issue.
There were various approaches, but in the case of World War I, it was during the throne speech, because of the timing. For the Korean War, a debate took place and there was a vote on government ways and means motions authorizing the measures to be taken regarding the war. No vote was taken regarding the Suez Canal conflict. A debate took place without a vote, but the issue was merely the sending of 11 people to monitor the truce.
So, as we can see, there have been debates and votes in the past. There were no debates and votes when the issue was merely the sending of a few people for peacekeeping purposes or similar reasons.
However, since 1993, troops have been sent abroad on several occasions, following take note debates, but not votes. The Prime Minister, who wants to leave a legacy and who surprised us somewhat with his proposal on party financing, should make his legacy to bring back the past practice of allowing members of Parliament to vote before troops are deployed to conflicts abroad.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Bloc foreign affairs critic on her as usual very lucid and visionary presentation. In the process I also want to congratulate her for moving a very important amendment to the motion, because we know the current Liberal government is not one that values and respects the participation of parliamentarians in a timely way, even on an issue as serious as taking our nation into a war. Therefore we need to be sure that it does not use a procedural delay as a way of basically continuing to disregard parliamentarians.
I also want to congratulate the member on having spoken today and many times very eloquently on the inherent danger of pre-emptive military strikes. I think that is one of the great concerns about the U.S. continuing to signal that it is hell bent to launch an attack on Iraq no matter what.
I wonder if the member might take the opportunity to speak on this subject about what a slippery slope it is for the U.S. or any country to take it upon itself in total defiance of international law to engage in pre-emptive strikes. If the U.S. can do it, then who else can do it? If in this case--
(1215)
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to rise, but I ask members to keep in mind that when members share their time it obviously leaves only five minutes for questions or comments.
[Translation]
So, I am asking the hon. member for Mercier to be brief in her reply to the hon. member for Halifax.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who is now the foreign affairs critic. I greatly enjoyed working with her predecessor, but I am certain that the committee will benefit from her presence.
I will be brief. We stated our position very early when we learned of the plan for pre-emptive strikes, and we have not changed our position; on the contrary. Of course, international terrorism seems to be an opportunity for the United States to ignore the rule of law, but it cannot be ignored, because without it, as my hon. colleague mentioned, any country could take the law into its own hands. This takes us right back to the 19th century, when each country thought that it could fix its problems through war.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, right off the bat, I want to draw the attention of people listening to the fact that, today, we are debating a votable motion.
The official opposition had to work some procedural magic to ensure a vote in the House of Commons, in the event of a decision to deploy troops. This is far from a sure thing right now. To force this debate, special procedures have to be resorted to. However, God knows that it is extremely important to have this debate, followed by a vote in the House of Commons before troops are deployed.
For example, I can mention the last conflict, in Afghanistan. During the NATO meeting here, in Ottawa, I received a call from an assistant to the Prime Minister telling us “The Prime Minister has just committed to war against Afghanistan, and there will be a take note debate when the House returns, next week”.
The decision had already been made. People were in the midst of preparations. Ships were preparing to leave. Troops were ready, at the ports, to be deployed to the theatre of operations, and the members of Parliament had not even had the opportunity to discuss it yet. Furthermore, we were not even given the opportunity to vote on this issue.
There are most certainly risks to Canadians and Quebeckers deployed to these theatres of operations. What happened in Afghanistan? Four Canadians from PPCLI, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry—I always salute them when I say their name, because they are the ones who helped us in Saint-Jean in 1998, during the ice storm—were killed under friendly fire. We remember. They may have been based in Saint-Jean. It is always difficult to deploy people to a theatre of operations and it is always very risky.
I attended the commemorative ceremony in Edmonton. It was very difficult to see the intense sadness of the 25,000 people who filled the hockey arena. They mourned the loss of four of their friends and colleagues, whose guns and helmets were placed front and centre during the ceremony. Canadians and Quebeckers who watched the ceremony on television certainly recognize the merit of these people who lost their life in a conflict that—I repeat—we had not even been called to vote on.
Yet, despite the many shifts and the fatigue of these soldiers, if they were deployed again tomorrow, with all the known risks, still they would go. I hope we will be able to vote to give our approval as members of Parliament.
There is no doubt that even after losing four men, if the members of the PPCLI were told that they were going back to a dangerous theatre of operations tomorrow, they would say “let's go”. The Royal 22e would do the same, as well as the Royal Canadian Regiment in the Atlantic provinces. I know how dedicated these people are. I trained with the Royal 22e and I am very glad I did. I know the level of dedication and commitment of these soldiers. When they are ordered to deploy, they do not ask any questions; they just go.
A vote is all the more important now because of the issues at stake. There were issues at stake then as well. The Prime Minister and his cabinet made the decision on their own. Now there are other issues at stake in this new war. Will we join a coalition of volunteers? Will we respect the UN, the multilateral organization that is supposed to deal with these international conflicts?
If we decide to go to war without a UN resolution,—and that is the instrument that was put in place after the war for the exact purpose of settling this type of issue—if we decide to join the Americans in a coalition of volunteers outside the bounds of the UN, I believe that there would be imminent danger. I am talking here about a return to the law of the jungle.
What would prevent North Korea from attacking South Korea on the grounds that it poses a threat? What would prevent Pakistan from attacking India on the grounds that it poses a threat? If the Americans can do it with their friends, other countries could also decide that they can do it with their own friends.
(1220)
There is the importance of the UN, and then there is the importance of allowing the inspectors to finish their job. Are they going to be allowed to do that before action is taken? Is there going to be a second UN resolution?
There are a lot of issues involved, we understand that. Talking about them is not enough. There must also be a vote on them. The members in this House, the parties in this House, must get some idea of all the issues I have listed, so that they can they say “Here is what our position is”.
There are, of course, take note debates, and our Liberal colleagues are constantly telling us that they do consult us. Consultations are, to our mind, all very well, take note debates are all very well. We take part in them but it is a bit frustrating, when the debate ends at midnight, to know that we will not have any say in the decision to be taken.
An hon. member: The decision is already made.
Mr. Claude Bachand: The decision is made, or will be, but without the vital input of the members of the House of Commons. In a Parliament, words, oration, discussion are not enough. There must also be a vote. When a candidate is appointed at a party nomination meeting, there is a vote. When we are here and there are major issues at stake, people expect us to be called upon to vote.
I see that time is flying and I would like to raise the question of the vitality of public opinion before I close. People listening to us know how important a vote in the House of Commons is. They think they elected us to vote. I can tell them that we often do. We vote on just about everything, from budgets to health, on all manner of things.
At this time an attempt is being made to prevent us from exercising our right to vote on something as important as the deployment of troops. The only thing protecting peace is public opinion. We have seen the polls, and my colleague has referred to them. We have referred to them regularly and they have been reported by the media. I think that the public is critical of participation in a war. They are fully aware that they themselves cannot turn up at the House of Commons and announce “I am opposed to this”. They have to influence their member of Parliament. There are people who want to influence us. Many of them let us know “Careful, don't do that”. Of course we bring their concerns here, but if we are deprived of our fundamental right to vote, the whole exercise will, in my opinion, have been pointless.
In closing, if we vote on things such as a tax increase, which requires a Parliamentary vote, on additional money for health, on the Kyoto protocol, on new financing for political parties, if we are allowed to vote on these issues, we should be able to vote on the dangers to which we would be subjecting young Quebeckers and young Canadians. They stand to shed their blood for their country if they are sent to a dangerous theatre of operations.
We must give members the opportunity to vote on this issue. If we are allowed to vote on tax increases, it seems to me more important that we also be allowed to vote when Canadians and Quebeckers are asked to risk their lives.
I would like to say to the government that if it does not allow a vote, it will pay a price for ignoring members of the House of Commons and only paying attention to the cabinet. The government will say, “legally, it is our right”, but legitimately, we are here to represent the public. In our ridings, we probably all have soldiers who may be called up if troops are deployed. The government must understand that we want to have our say. It must also understand that we must be able to vote to decide on what is said.
If the government cannot respect this, it will have to pay the political price. The voters, who go to the polls every four years, will be the ones to denounce this government's arrogance. They will know that they have the right to vote. They will definitely vote against those who prevented members of Parliament from voting on issues after debate, especially when it is important.
(1225)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Saint-Jean on his speech, and I know that, as defence critic, he is very aware of the state of the troops. I would like to ask him a question that seems relevant.
In the end, would not the soldiers who might have to go to the front in a military campaign to disarm Saddam Hussein—if that is what the government decides—want the support of the Government of Canada, the support of the House of Commons where their elected representatives sit, on this decision that will be made? Is it not important also for soldiers to know exactly what parliamentarians think about this issue? Would it not be important for them to have this information?
The Minister of Defence has said many different things. He even went to the United States and, each time he spoke, the message was not very clear. Would it not be better to send a clear message, to know exactly what the members representing the people think of this, so that the military can be informed?
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.
Indeed, I have never seen such fancy footwork. Personally, although I am not a French figure skating judge, I would certainly give a 10 to the national defence minister, the foreign affairs minister and the Prime Minister. They have been dancing around the possibility of having a vote, which is far from a sure thing. And what about their position? Will they choose to follow the United States, yes or no?
Any soldier about to be sent to the theatre of operations needs to know what is going on, as well as his or her family, who will also be greatly affected. You just have to see the families bid farewell to their loved ones to understand that this is a risky business.
Since the decision is only up to the Prime Minister or his caucus, those who do not have the chance to have the Prime Minister or a minister as their member of Parliament will soon realize that their elected representative has had no say in the matter. He or she might have had a say, but not the opportunity to vote on this issue, which is something very important for the legitimacy of the whole process.
Let me remind my colleague that the U.S. Congress and the House of Commons in Great Britain have always promised to have a vote. Tony Blair mentioned it again. There was a vote in Washington, and there might be another one because of the newest developments. Prime Minister Blair stated in the House that he would uphold tradition and ensure that the House of Commons holds a vote on such a fundamental issue.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a serious concern this morning and I would like to have the opinion of the hon. member for Saint-Jean.
I am concerned that 49% of Quebeckers say they are against sending soldiers to Iraq under any circumstance and that 38% of all Canadians say no. That is the same percentage the Liberals had in the last election.
Are all the members of this House not starting to be concerned about the polls on whether or not soldiers should be sent to Iraq?
(1230)
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
First, I disagree with those who say the government should operate on the basis of polls alone. However, we cannot ignore the fact that a large portion of the public has serious reservations about a war in Iraq.
My colleague is right and I would go further by saying that, at the present time, public opinion is the last bastion of peace. Some are starting to feel the heat. President Bush is feeling the heat and the British Prime Minister is feeling the heat within his own party from people who say to be careful.
That is perhaps the fundamental notion, the lesson of this morning, and of this day. Maybe the Prime Minister of Canada is afraid of the members of his own party on this issue right now, which is probably why he is trying to prevent a vote in this House. As I said earlier, there will certainly be a political price to pay if he denies the members of this House a vote on such a fundamental issue.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have already had the opportunity to commend the official opposition for today's motion. I am also pleased about the amendment which was brought forward and which I also find very important.
[English]
Before I get into the substance of the motion that has been put before the House and the position of the New Democratic Party, we would be well advised to remind ourselves of the wise words of Lester Pearson in a similar debate many years ago, when he said:
|
The grim fact is that we prepare for war like precocious giants, and for peace like retarded pygmies. |
Until recent years many Canadians would have thought that advice coming from Lester Pearson was not toward the Liberal Party of this place, but toward those who would be seen as warmongers and hawks in the international stage.
However, the reality is that there is alarming evidence that the government has been speaking out of both sides of its mouth on the whole question of what Canada's position is vis-à-vis a possible war against Iraq. It is critically important that we begin to come to grips with that very serious problem.
Rather than just reminding the Alliance opposition of this warning by Lester Pearson, it is members of that once proud Liberal Party who need to be taking very seriously his advice in that respect.
This morning's meeting in the foreign affairs committee was very disappointing. After having had brave words from the foreign affairs minister to the effect that Canada continues to speak with a strong consistent voice on its position with respect to any possible war against Iraq, he then proceeded to be inconsistent, contradictory and as always, erratic in responding to questions that were put to him on this very question.
We already know the line of the Prime Minister, the foreign affairs minister, and at least those in the frontbenches who have spoken out with respect to the question that is now before us in this opposition day motion, namely, the need to respect and ensure the participation of all parliamentarians in a vote in the House of Commons on what is surely one of the most serious decisions that any nation can make, that is, launching a war against another country.
Why is it necessary for us to debate the question of whether a vote should be allowed? I guess there are two explanations. First, the position of the Liberal Party is that it is completely acceptable to take one position in opposition, which it did in the event of the gulf war and adamantly maintained that there needed to be a vote by all parliamentarians in the House of Commons, and to take a different position when in government.
Second, and in some ways this is even more worrisome because everybody knows that there is a record in the Liberal Party of speaking the voice of peace when in opposition, but sounding far too much like the voice of the hawks or the voice of war when in government.
However, far more serious than that, the reason we are having this debate is that the federal Liberal government has virtually abandoned the time honoured role, the hard earned role, and the highly respected role, of being among the peace builders, peace seekers and peacekeepers of this world. That goes to the very heart and soul of who we are as a nation.
Perhaps it is useful to refer to the facts about what parliamentary debate and votes took place in the House of Commons in the context of the 1991 gulf war.
(1235)
I do not want to use all my time describing in detail what the various motions were and what the various votes were, but let it be said, let the record show and let the Liberal government of the day be reminded that between October 23, 1990, and late January of 1991 there in fact were three full debates in the House, not take note and let us have a little chat late at night debates, but real, thorough debates in the House of Commons. Eleven days were devoted to those debates. Seventy-one hours of debate took place. There were six votes on the very question of Canada's military participation in any gulf war.
How was it that the Liberals were so adamant in maintaining that this was not only the right of parliamentarians but absolutely the responsibility of the government of the day to ensure that all parliamentarians had an opportunity to exercise their responsibility?
Only the government can answer the question of how it was fine to take one position 12 years ago and to today take exactly the opposite position. Perhaps if it is reminded of what took place 12 years ago and of how heartbroken, I believe, more and more Canadians are about its abandonment of a responsible, independent foreign policy then perhaps it could be brought to its senses and recognize the simple justice involved, never mind the democratic requirements of ensuring that all parliamentarians have a voice.
Why are we so concerned about ensuring that there be a voice for parliamentarians? It is not just because we like to hear ourselves speak. It is not just because we think that in the casting of a vote somehow we 301 people have a special importance here. It is because we are here representing our constituents. We are here representing Canadians. What is becoming increasingly evident is that the government is not listening to the voices of Canadians with respect to the issue of any possible military engagement in the war on Iraq.
I know that when I get up and speak as the foreign affairs critic and when my colleagues get up and speak as New Democrats, as parliamentarians, about how desperately Canadians want their government to be a voice of peace, Liberal members stand and say, “What kind of naive talk is that?” or “What does that mean anyway?”
Let me say what that means. It does not just mean mouthing words about hoping that peace can be achieved. It is about being an advocate for peace. It is about being a relentless, resolute activist for peace. It is about Canada making the choice that it wants to be associated with those other governments around the world that are using every possible means to ensure that we do not end up in a war in Iraq. I do not think there is any evidence that this is what the government is doing.
In fact sometimes when the response from the foreign affairs minister sounds like it is a strong position advocating an independent foreign policy role, it is as if suddenly a ventriloquist comes along behind him and he then practically reverses the position right within the same sentence or right within the same discussion. That is not what people mean when they say they want Canada to be an advocate for peace.
Let me just say that it is very distressing, because we have had a concrete example. This is not some abstract difference of opinion going on here. This is the New Democratic Party speaking, we believe, for the increasing numbers of Canadians who want leadership on the international stage around the looming, threatening prospect of a war on Iraq, and we are not getting it.
(1240)
This morning in the foreign affairs committee the minister actually dismissed as hypothetical questions as to what the position of Canada is, not what it would be in the future but what it is today, on the possibility that Hans Blix will say more time is needed and that there is indeed conclusive evidence of material breach by Iraq in the event that the U.S. declares it is going to war. He refused to answer those questions. The question was about the following. Are there not other steps? Are there not alternatives to war? Are there not things that Canada has in its current foreign policy as to what can be done rather than going directly to war? The foreign affairs minister basically said that it was a hypothetical question.
A second question was asked. If the recommendation of the Security Council is to have more time for the weapons inspections to continue and the U.S. unilaterally declares its war, what is Canada's position on that? The answer was basically that this was a hypothetical question.
If we follow that through to its logical conclusion, would Canada have any foreign policy on anything? This is about what Canada is saying today and going to do tomorrow in the event of certain things happening. That is what our foreign policy is.
It is appalling that the foreign affairs minister was not able to stand up and speak to the excellent, specific, concrete recommendations, for example, that came from an experienced, esteemed, expert panel on alternatives to war with Iraq when he was asked that question this morning. The panel tabled its report and sent it to the government on December 11. It has been widely circulated publicly. The minister did not make a single reference to the four very clear, concise, concrete recommendations on what Canada could and should be doing so that we do not find ourselves in the position of finding a material breach by Iraq, and this is quite possible, let me be clear about that, and a declaration of war. There are concrete measures that can be taken in the interim and the government is sitting there with excellent recommendations to that effect.
When we talk about this being a choice for Canada and therefore parliamentarians should have their say in what choice Canada makes, I know that the government dismisses this whole thing as if it is some kind of abstract question. I come from a riding where there is a very large number of military men and women whose lives are in the balance when a discussion like this happens. They have mothers, fathers, children, brothers, sisters and neighbours, all of whom care about them and all of whom want to know that the government is doing absolutely everything within its power to ensure that our loved ones are not sent off into harm's way when other options are available.
In addressing this issue, I had a very fine message earlier this week from a man in my own province whom I greatly admire and respect, Dr. Kell Antoft, who served Canada's military very proudly and who lost his brother in the second world war. Dr. Antoft continues to be an active veteran in this country, speaking to issues of war and peace.
(1245)
I will just briefly quote from what he had to say in the event that the government fails to provide the leadership being sought by Canadians and the world:
|
Regardless of the urgency of attempts being made in the United Nations to preserve some semblance of peace...it seems increasingly clear that in the case of Iraq, the leadership of the United States will really only be satisfied with a military “solution”. Canada will be under pressure to decide on its role in this unfolding human tragedy. Should we offer as a loyal ally to take part in the killing phase of a possible campaign, or should we rather seek a non-violent role in binding up the wounds that would inevitably be the principal legacy of such a war? |
Dr. Antoft went on to say, “From a military point of view, we are clearly ill prepared” for a variety of reasons that we don't have time to debate at this moment “to take part in the fighting”. He states:
|
Apart from the question of available manpower, and in spite of the prevailing mantra of our DND establishment that our soldiers need training only for combat, we have little of the heavy hardware demanded by modern warfare. |
He went on to remind us that “It was in peacekeeping following”, ironically, “earlier Middle East conflicts that Canada” began to accumulate “an enviable reputation” in the world.
Lamenting deeply, as do the majority of Canadians, in my view, he said that Canada has “tended to squander some of the goodwill earned by our forces”. That is who has earned us the goodwill over the years, the forces who have behaved in a manner consistent with the commitment of Canadians to be peace builders and peace seekers and peacekeepers.
Dr. Antoft's words of advice are extremely well founded. I hope the government will see fit to pay attention to that kind of advice, which is coming more and more from those who are desperate to see Canada play a role consistent with our proud tradition as peace builders and peace seekers.
Before I conclude, I want to comment again about the issue of our having a vote. It seems to me that the government is not listening to what Canadians are telling it. It is not even listening to the advice that has stood the test of time, for example, that which came from Lester Pearson.
(1250)
I know that in these matters sometimes we are unduly partisan, but I want to say that if the government will not listen to the voices of members on this side, to expert panels or to the many other sources of advice that are forthcoming, then maybe it could at least begin to listen to the advice of Canada's former foreign affairs minister, Lloyd Axworthy, who has demonstrated not just in words but in deeds and action that Canada continues to have an important role to play among the mid-sized nations who genuinely understand the concept of human security and realize that there are no military solutions anymore and that Canada needs to become a no war country, one that says we will engage in fighting on every single front to bring about peace, reconciliation and reconstruction in the lives of people. In this case we are talking about the lives of Iraqis. That is who is lost in all of this.
I want to say again that we absolutely plead with and implore the government to understand that we cannot exercise our responsibility as parliamentarians, that the Liberals are not exercising their responsibility as a government if they do not allow the people of Canada to speak through their 301 elected parliamentarians to take a formal, public and on the record position of where each and every one of the government members stand and where the respective political parties stand on the issue of launching a war in Iraq.
Let me conclude by making it absolutely clear where the New Democratic Party stands. We stand with those who say no war, no way.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments and then ask a question.
When the U.S. declared war on bin Laden in Afghanistan, I quoted part of a speech made in 1991 by the current Prime Minister who was at the time the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons. He clearly stated that the Canadian government should never go to war under the aegis of the United States, only under the aegis of the United Nations. Never should we go to war under the aegis of another country.
Nowadays, the same man, the Leader of the Opposition at the time and currently the Prime Minister of Canada, is saying something completely different. When I first made my speech, he said that we were not talking about the same thing.
I would like to know what the member for Halifax thinks about the position the Prime Minister took when he was in the opposition and the one he is taking now. How could it have changed? He said one thing when he was in opposition and now that he is in office he is saying something completely different. I would like to find out what the member thinks about all of this.
(1255)
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reference just now to the questions I asked this morning by the hon. member.
I should point out that everybody in the House would say that war should be a very last resort. That is the essence of the government's position which has been well enunciated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I realize that there was not a lot of detail in answer to a hypothetical question. I certainly hope that the government is thoroughly thinking of these matters and these various scenarios. I can understand its only divulging so much publicly. I think the position of our government is the correct one at this point.
I would like to get to the motion before us which was moved by the Canadian Alliance House leader. I would like to ask the hon. member why it is that we cannot have, instead of the motion that is before us, what is already within the procedures of the House and that is a party can move non-confidence in the government if it does not like the government's decision?
The Alliance House leader is saying in his motion that the House should make some decision after the government has made its decision to confirm it. If it is a very serious matter, such as war, perhaps a confidence motion is the appropriate thing to be moving.
I know the hon. member cited the position of the Liberal Party when it was in opposition. At that time I was not there and I do not know all the rationale behind it. Maybe the Conservative government did the wrong thing in allowing the vote. I have looked into the history of this chamber and Parliament did not declare Canada's entry into World War II. This Parliament did not declare Canada's entry into Korea. In fact, there is a much stronger tradition of the executive branch, the cabinet, making those decisions.
The cabinet is in the best position to make those decisions. It has all the relevant information, including intelligence information that it cannot divulge publicly if it is getting into a conflict situation. It is appropriate for the government to make that kind of decision.
If the opposition does not like it, it can move a non-confidence motion. I see no point. Perhaps the hon. member could comment further on the need for this motion that has been put by the Canadian Alliance. There is a procedure already in place to deal with such matters.
An hon. member: And bring down the government.
Hon. Art Eggleton: If it is that serious maybe that is what should be moved.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's point. I too am distressed at the idea that the motion only contemplates a role for Parliament after the fact. I personally find that inadequate.
Perhaps this is the difficulty I have with the suggestion made by the Liberal member. It is not just about yes or no. It is also about the role. The most serious responsibility of opposition members is to try to move the government toward doing the progressive thing. It is not about confidence or non-confidence. I believe it is about using every possible means.
Someone wrote to me saying what they would like the government to do and that we need to do everything in our power to prevent war. We need to make it clear that we will put our hearts and souls into peacekeeping in a number of concrete practical ways.
It is the process of trying to get the government to respond to the many sources of good advice that it is hearing. The government has to be accountable for what it is doing or not doing. This is the role of the opposition.
The point is that we cannot just put this off into take note debates that are not at the core of the parliamentary process. We know this. What is becoming clearer unfortunately is it is the government's tactic for dealing with really urgent matters.
I will say again that we need not just one vote after the fact. We also need to have some motions put forward with genuine alternatives. Then we need to have some votes on where members actually stand. We need to keep trying to move the government toward being that proactive peace seeker which not just Canadians but the world counts on Canada to step up to the plate and actually be in the world today.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: There are only two minutes left on this intervention. We have time for a one-minute question followed by a one-minute answer.
The hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
(1300)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question will be brief.
Since Mr. Powell's presentation yesterday, is there not room for a peace initiative by Canada? We could put forward the idea that, instead of going to war, we should develop a permanent or long term control and verification system in Iraq to ensure that there are no inappropriate activities going on in that country. This would allow us to avoid a war.
Should the Government of Canada not play a leadership role in this regard, which, unfortunately, is not the case right now?
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely think Canada should be playing a leadership role.
They could do no better than follow the advice from that panel of experts on alternatives of war when it recommended that no Canadian participation should take place in or support for military action against Iraq without the clearest possible justification under international law. It went on to say that in particular Canada must reject an invasion of Iraq, unless and until there has been an express authorization of the use of force by the UN Security Council after it has determined that a bona fide and imminent threat exists to international peace and security that cannot be resolved or contained in any way other than through the use of force.
Yesterday's presentation by the U.S. to try to justify Bush's war that he is hell-bent to conduct absolutely does not meet any of those criteria. That is why it is so unacceptable that the government is not willing to commit itself to the course of action recommended as an alternative to war.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been consultations among parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and the member for Cumberland—Colchester to divide their 20-minute speaking time into two parts as they may determine.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House to support this positive motion brought forward by my colleague, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast. We will also support the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.
I will be sharing my time with the member for Cumberland—Colchester.
Today's debate on having a vote in the House of Commons before any military intervention in Iraq is welcome. However, I find it sad that we had to wait for an opposition day to have an opportunity to debate this issue.
[English]
It should be clear that the motion does not call for a vote now on the involvement of Canada but rather a vote as soon as the government has taken a decision. No one is rushing the government. The issue is, will the government be allowed to push Parliament out of the way?
For weeks now, all opposition parties have been demanding a vote prior to any military action, but these reasonable requests have fallen on deaf ears. The relevant precedents support the practice of Parliament voting on questions of war. The government can hide behind exceptions, but those exceptions are clearly not the rule.
What is more to the point is that public attitudes have changed profoundly since 1911, since 1939 and since 1950. For any minister who missed the 1960s, the whole debate about Vietnam reflected a fundamental change in the determination of citizens in democracies to be heard on questions of war and peace.
[Translation]
Yesterday, in my office, I had a visit from a young student from the Outaouais who circulated a petition that was signed by 3,000 students from the region. The petition will be presented by the member for Gatineau later this session. This shows that young people are deeply committed to issues dealing with war and peace.
[English]
Citizens today are more educated. They are more exacting and more determined to shape the events that shape their lives. Just as ministers can no longer get away with slipping off to some wealthy contributor's chalet, governments cannot get away with slipping off to war.
Parliament took clear account of those new public attitudes during the gulf war, which is the one engagement that most precisely parallels what faces Canada and the world today. This whole Parliament, every party agreed to precisely the right to vote that is being proposed here today.
In 1993 the Liberal government broke that consensus and brought in a new practice that denied Parliament the right to vote on military engagements, a vote that Parliament had exercised as recently as 1991. I point out to Liberal members opposite that that reversal on democracy was not in the Liberal Party red book of 1993. When it sought the support of citizens in the 1993 election, the Liberal Party did not campaign on denying Parliament the right to vote on these matters. On the contrary, the position of record of the Liberal Party in the 1993 election was the position it took in Parliament on the gulf war when the Liberal Party asked for precisely what is proposed in the motion today.
My point is not simply that the motion reflects exactly the position the Liberal Party asked for in 1991. It represents the position the Liberal Party stood for in the 1993 election when it won its mandate. Liberal members who might be pressured to oppose the motion would break faith with both what the public wants today and with what the Liberal Party stood for when it won its mandate in 1993.
(1305)
[Translation]
The precedent clearly exists, the government's commitment is clear, and all that is missing is the willingness of members opposite to ensure that this House has the opportunity to do something concrete by voting on this issue.
[English]
The debate today is not about the government indulging Parliament. The government needs the authority of a vote by Parliament. Deliberately putting Canadian lives at risk is not a trivial matter. By definition, it is a decision a thousand times more grave than the ordinary day to day decisions of governments.
If the educated, informed, engaged, modern citizens of Canada are going to support a military action which could cost lives and which could have literally untold consequences, then those citizens must be brought into the decision. Canadians are reasonable if they are treated reasonably. They are capable of judging a case if they are allowed to hear that case. They would be far more likely to support a decision by the government if that decision were openly arrived at with the votes in Parliament that Canadians expect on matters of life and of death.
The Canadian public is deeply divided on the issue of war in Iraq. Public instincts in Canada are against decisions which the government refuses to put to a vote.
If any war goes wrong, if there are Canadian casualties, if bad judgment precipitates the collapse of stable regimes in Jordan, Egypt, or elsewhere in the Middle East; or if it precipitates the outbreak of violence in Indonesia, Africa, south Asia, Europe, or in the former Soviet Union; if the coalition against terrorism is shattered, the Canadian government is going to need Canadian public opinion. It is going to need legitimacy. It is going to need authority. A free and honest vote on any dangerous course of action is the best way to assure that legitimacy. To proceed without it would put at grave risk the government's ability to govern should, God forbid, things go badly wrong.
That authority is essential also in the wider world. In the short term, in the excruciating but relatively easy days of preparing for war, our potential allies want other governments on side, but as the going gets tough, they will want other populations on side. They will want to know that the Prime Minister speaks for more than his family and his friends. If Parliament is shut out and if the people are shut out when the basic decision is taken, Canadians will have no sense that any decision taken by the government on war or peace is their decision.
As times get tougher, they will turn away from a government which turned away from them. In that sense, the issue is not about democracy now. The issue is about authority later. The motion provides the simplest way to begin to build that authority.
(1310)
[Translation]
In conclusion, I want to tell the government members that this motion is not, in any way, a non-confidence vote against the government. On the contrary, it is a vote for strong parliamentary democracy.
[English]
There is no possible way this can be considered a vote of non-confidence in the government. Votes of non-confidence bring the government to a halt. The motion explicitly contemplates that the government will stay in office, will continue to govern and will be free to take, as I quote the language “a decision...to involve Canada in any military action to disarm Saddam Hussein”. All the motion asks is that the ministers take account of the votes of the members of the House of Commons.
The parliamentary democracy of Australia did take a different course this week. It voted on specific motions of non-confidence in the government. That could have been done here if we were interested simply in playing politics. It was not done here. A different course was taken. A vote against the motion is a vote against Parliament and a vote against the right of the people to have their elected representatives decide the most critical issue that a nation will face.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1994 the government introduced what we call take note debates. Since then the opposition has always asked that we should have a vote after each take note debate. Now it turns around and comes up with another motion which says that the day after the Government of Canada decides to send its troops we must come back and vote if it was a good or bad idea.
What the hon. member is saying is that the day after the war starts, we should come here to vote. If we say no, we do not want the war and we want the troops back from the Iraqi theatre, the Prime Minister would have to phone President George Bush and say that our Parliament voted against it so we have to bring our troops back. Is that what the hon. member expects us to do?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are proposing exactly what the member for Saint-Maurice, the then leader of the opposition and the present Prime Minister, proposed in 1991. The precedent is drawn precisely from what was proposed by the Liberal Party in opposition then.
The hon. member was elected 1993. I would be interested in knowing whether the hon. member, when he sought election in his constituency, went out and told his electorate that he intended to change the rules. The rules were that Parliament had a voice on questions of war and peace. Did he promise his electors that he would break those rules? Does he have any mandate to break those rules, or did his electors know that his Prime Minister, his leader, as leader of the opposition had embraced and urged the right of Parliament to vote?
That was the record of the Liberal Party. It had no mandate to break that practice when it took office in 1993. Yes, it brought in take note debates. Why? Not to hear from Parliament, but to deny Parliament the opportunity to have any real influence upon the decisions of the government. That is at the heart of the debate. That is why this motion asks precisely that the House of Commons today follow the practice recommended by the leader of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Party in 1991.
(1315)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his comments. I have a great interest in what is taking place in this particular situation, but I have a larger interest in ensuring that democracy prevails, particularly in this place.
I believe the intention of this motion is to see to it that that happens. I find it discouraging that when members from the Liberal government rise they are not speaking directly to the motion. They are avoiding it like the plague.
Could the member explain to me as to why they are avoiding even talking about the motion when they rise and speak to this issue?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. I did not draft this motion; it was drafted by others. It was drafted very specifically to ensure that the principle would be respected, that Parliament would have the right to vote once a decision had been taken by the government. It was designed to maintain the tradition that had been established during the 1991 gulf war.
My only guess would be that the reason the Liberal Party members are not addressing that issue is that they know they have no mandate to break that tradition. They know that the people who voted for them in 1993 assumed that they would continue to defend the right of Parliament to vote on these issues, which their own leader had argued for so strongly in 1991. I remember how strongly he argued for it.
It is important for members of the Liberal Party to know that those of us in opposition will be making sure that their own constituents understand how they have voted against the mandate that they received when they were elected.
The simple fact is that they do not want to talk about it because they broke their word. I would urge them to go back to the position which helped them win the election in 1993, the position of saying that Parliament should have a right to vote on these issues.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the hon. member for Wild Rose who said that government members are avoiding the question like the plague.
Mr. Speaker, you and I will remember back in 1990 when the Liberals did not avoid the question. They were very adamant. In fact the foreign affairs minister's predecessor, Lloyd Axworthy, a prominent Liberal, stated at that time:
|
...to deny the opportunity for this Parliament to be heard or to represent the Canadian people, to have the question posed, is a dereliction of duty by the government. |
That is what the Liberals were saying then when they did not avoid the argument that they are avoiding today.
This whole issue is about contradictions. It is about the right of Parliament to be respected and heard. In 1990 before the first Iraq war Parliament was heard. There was a vote and we did have an opportunity to stand up. No issue is more important than the one we are talking about. I go back to Lloyd Axworthy again, who asked on October 23, 1990:
|
...can we get assurances from the minister...to have Parliament consulted before any final decisions are made as to these plans relating to our forces in the gulf area? |
That question could be asked again today and probably is being asked by Lloyd Axworthy because he is one Liberal who has not changed the rules or has diametrically gone in the opposite direction.
This is a very important issue that we are talking about. It is about our ability to represent our constituents, as the Liberals once very adequately and eloquently defended but have given up on that principle. They have changed the rules altogether.
After the Conservatives agreed to have a vote, the then leader of the opposition, and now the Prime Minister, still complained that it had not occurred earlier. He said:
|
...we are being called upon to vote on a resolution... We on this side of the House believe that this resolution should have been brought to a vote before January 15, as was done in the U.S. Congress. |
He was not happy with the time of the vote, but at least he got one. The same Prime Minister is now saying no vote for this Parliament. A vote then, but no vote now.
We can go on to the current House leader who now says no vote. On January 17, 1991, he stated:
|
...I think I had a right and my constituents had a right to have that fundamental question posed and to have all of us speak on the question that should have been before Parliament. |
What happened to that man? Now he is saying no vote. We have the current Liberal House leader saying no vote. The Prime Minister says no vote. The former Liberal foreign affairs minister says no vote. It is pretty much unanimous now that there will be no vote, but at that time they did demand a vote. Now none of them will support Parliament having a vote.
This morning in the foreign affairs committee the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a man for whom I have great respect, came in and said there is a very important role for Parliament in this debate about Iraq. What is the role if we cannot vote? Then he said he did not think the committee should hear witnesses from the United States or Iraq on this issue, which was a motion I was going to present later on in the committee meeting.
I ask again, if Parliament is supposed to have an important role and we cannot vote, we cannot hear witnesses, and we cannot participate, what is the important role for Canada? I was very disappointed in the way that happened.
We do have an important role. We are being muzzled and denied the right to speak. We are being denied the right to vote. We are being denied the right to hear witnesses in committees. These are important issues.
If the government changes its mind and allows us to vote on this issue, I may be asked to vote on whether we send Canadians to another country to attack another people. I want to know as much as possible about that issue before I make that decision. I want to hear from the parties involved. I want to get every piece of information I can, but the government for some reason says no, we should not know this. We should not have this information. We should just go by what other people tell us and that we should trust the people in the government who are here to help us.
The fact of the matter is we have been denied the access to information. We have been denied opportunities to hear from witnesses who are very much involved. I know there was another motion that was contemplated in our committee this morning, which was to have a vote. That discussion was adjourned and the vote was gone.
The whole strategy here is to keep everyone quiet, not to listen to anyone, and not to let anyone vote or do anything. Then the government turns around and says Parliament has a very important role to play. If we cannot vote and cannot hear witnesses, what is that role?
(1320)
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to note the reasoning on the part of the foreign affairs minister in this morning's committee meeting. I want to query the member about his lack of understanding.
The minister made clear that his concern about providing a venue at this time for Iraqi officials would distract them from the onus that is heavily upon them to be working with the people in the country right now looking for weapons and that it is their job to be doing just that. Their venue is the United Nations. That is exactly where the Iraqis are to focus. To create a whole series of discussions in parliaments around the world, from our perspective, would do nothing to achieve peace and would provide further obfuscation.
I want to ask the hon. member: what is it about what has been said to date by the Iraqi officials and what happened regarding the way they have approached this, namely, failing to come forward and meeting the onus set by resolution 1441, does he not understand. What does he need to hear again in a committee room in the House of Commons?
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, again, I do not understand that argument. I heard it this morning. I did not understand it then and I do not understand it now.
We, as a Canadian people, will be asked to attack another people. It is not only Saddam Hussein, who everybody agrees should be eliminated out of the picture, moved away, or taken away and the regime changed, or whatever. Nobody argues with that.
My argument is the Canadian people may attack a people who have never attacked us. If we are prepared to attack another people, it does not matter who it is, we should be prepared to listen to them. I do not understand why Canada will not listen to people. I just do not understand that change in foreign policy, that we will bomb but not listen. No matter who it is we should listen.
That came up at Concordia University. Everybody should be allowed to be heard and have the opportunity to be listened to in Canada. To say, “We are not going to listen to people, but we may attack them” is wrong.
As far as the venue of the United Nations goes, I support the United Nations 100%. The problem is the government will not say whether it supports the United Nations or not.
(1325)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to my hon. colleague, are the Liberal members not taking a stance—as we have been unable, ever since the beginning of this debate, to find out if they are going to vote for or against the motion—because they have been jolted by our arguments so far and there might be differences of opinions within the Liberal majority, which would explain why no member of the government has been willing to set out its position?
They might have been jolted by the positions we have taken, because in the end members of four different political parties will possibly be voting differently on the advisability of sending troops. However, these four parties and their members agree that the House should have the opportunity to vote. Would that explain what is going on here?
All members must have received letters from people telling them why we should not go to war and from others who believe we should support the United States. But these people all agree on one thing, “Keep in mind your duty as elected representatives, you are paid to do a job.” When is the government going to let us vote on this issue?
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that our position is that we are against a violent solution if there is a diplomatic one available. We are not at all satisfied that every effort has been made to find a diplomatic solution.
To answer the question, I asked that question this morning of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I asked what his position was and how he would vote? He said the House leader would come into the House and give the position of the government. Here is what the government House leader said on January 17, 1991, and it would be interesting to see if he says the same thing today. He said then:
|
...I think I had a right and my constituents had a right to have that fundamental question posed and to have all of us speak on the question that should have been before Parliament. |
I hope he comes in the House and says the same thing now, and I hope the government votes in support of this motion, as we will.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member and his party for bringing forward their position.
For some individuals the debate today is about Iraq and the fact that Iraq must be disarmed. Others believe the debate today has more to do with the United States and its role in achieving the things it would like to achieve.
Personally, and from another perspective, I think the debate is more about the United Nations and the relevance of the United Nations after almost a decade of failing to bring forward, in a meaningful way, the directives that it has given in the past.
However the motion today is more about the leadership of Canada and its role, but more specifically, it is about Parliament's role.
I would question the member as to why, when he was in opposition, our current Prime Minister would stand in debate so solidly and so strongly for a vote in Parliament and now, when he is in a position of power, he almost pushes away Parliament and is fearful of what members may bring forward in a vote.
Would the member care to comment on that?
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, if I could answer that question I could answer why he reversed his position on free trade and why he reversed his position on the GST. However I cannot answer any of those questions. All I know is what he said on January 22, 1991. He said:
|
We on this side of the House believe that this resolution should have been brought to a vote before January 15, as was done in the U.S. Congress. |
He was complaining about the timing of the vote, not the fact that he did not have one because the Conservatives gave him a vote.
On the member's question about the UN, I believe that what we are doing here puts the UN at risk if we do not do the right thing. At that time Liberal Lloyd Axworthy said “If all of a sudden we are beginning to deploy troops...beyond the clear definition provided by the UN, then we may also be in danger of undermining the opportunity of the UN to act”, and we must comply with the United Nations on this thing.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
First, I would like to thank my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance for making the debate today possible. We have before us a motion that asks that we concur in any decision by the government regarding Canada's involvement in military action. What we are doing is asking that we actually bring our involvement in a potential war to a vote in the House. That speaks to the persistence of the disintegration of democracy in the House.
I understand and I believe Canadians understand that the fact that we are actually discussing Canada's role does not mean the government will listen. However that does not diminish the fact that this debate should take place.
Unlike many members of the House, many of my constituents are directly affected by any decision to join the war against terrorism in Iraq.
As the home of Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, many of the young women and men who will be called upon in service to their country, should they be called upon to actually go to Iraq, are currently serving in Petawawa.
I know the shudder that moves through a military community whenever bad news is received. I remind the Minister of National Defence that it was under his watch when the two helicopter pilots died last summer in Labrador and it is for the spouses of the dead pilots that I speak today when I join with the families of our soldiers in urging the government to take caution in whatever action is taken.
We must remember that the debate about whether or not the government is properly funding the military boils down to the people in uniform who are expected to carry out the government's wishes. As the soldiers are called upon to make do with scarcer resources, it is the families who suffer as they wait for the uncertain news of whether their loved ones will be returned to them safely.
To put this debate in context, I will share with all members of the House a letter I received recently from a constituent about the prospect of war in Iraq and Canada's participation in that exercise. The letter reads:
|
Yesterday was bitterly cold in Pembroke. |
|
Nonetheless, about 90 of your constituents turned out at the corner of Pembroke and MacKay streets (me included) to demonstrate against war with Iraq and in favour of peace. |
|
I urge you to vote against any legislation or resolution promoting war with Iraq, either in conjunction with a UN resolution or with the U.S. and Britain alone. Saddam is a monster, no one could deny that, but there are many others just as bad. |
|
And there are some whose actions pose a far greater threat to the west than Saddam. |
|
One inevitable consequence of war in the Middle East would be the death of many non-combatants: women, children, the elderly, the disabled. |
|
Please use your vote in Parliament and your influence with your colleagues to prevent war and work for peace. |
I shall be thanking John for his correspondence sent on January 19, which urged me to vote against any legislation or resolution promoting war with Iraq. However I cannot tell him that we will be even voting on this.
Certain members of the government try to portray those of us in the official opposition in simplistic terms when it comes to a complex situation, when it comes to something like Middle East politics, when thoughtful observers know otherwise.
Supporting our allies any more than not supporting them is not something that we determine easily, so let us examine the facts. Saddam Hussein killed 200,000 Iraqi Kurds using high explosives and chemical weapons in the 1980s. This will be included in my letter to John Pepper.
(1330)
After the 1991 gulf war Saddam Hussein killed 20,000 more Kurds to crush an internal intifada. He ordered the killing of 60,000 Shiites to pre-empt an uprising against Sunni role. Saddam is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of his own constituents, including women, children, the elderly and the disabled.
The UN inspectors have found 16 undeclared, empty chemical warheads and 3,000 pages of documents regarding nuclear weapons technology.
On January 19 Hans Blix said that a lot of the documents concerned nuclear and some missiles. They had not been declared and should have been declared. He also said that the warheads should have been properly declared and in fact destroyed.
UNSCOM said that Hussein had 30,000 such warheads, plus 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas, 400 biological weapons, 26,000 litres of anthrax, as well as botulism, VX nerve agent and sarin gas. These were supposed to be turned over and destroyed but have never been accounted for.
The onus is on Hussein to show compliance, not on the UN to find a smoking gun. When the gun is smoking it is too late.
On January 16 Dr. Blix stated:
|
We have found several cases where it is clear that Iraq has imported weapons related material in violation of the prohibitions of the Security Council. |
Whether these items are related to weapons of mass destruction is a matter that still has to be determined. He also said that some of the illegal importation occurred as recently as 2002.
Both Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell have suggested that Iraqi leaders go into exile to avoid war. News reports in the Middle East say that Saudi Arabia and others have made overtures to Iraq about such a plan. Saddam insists that he will stay and fight to defend Baghdad despite this potential solution.
French President Chirac and German Chancellor Schroeder announced on January 22 that both countries would vote against any UN resolution for war against Iraq and that they would oppose any U.S. led invasion.
By coincidence, France and Russia, both veto bearing members of the UN Security Council, have made oil deals with Iraq that blatantly contravene UN resolutions. So has Syria, a known state sponsor of terrorism, an Iraqi ally and temporary member of the Security Council.
The UN meekly accepted the eviction of UN weapons inspectors in 1998. The oil for food program has not been affected by Hussein's outright belligerence. Flagrant violations have gone unpunished for years.
The UN failed to act in Rwanda, in East Timor and in Kosovo. Thousands upon thousands of civilians were massacred. The future of the UN is at risk if it fails to act in Iraq. UN authorization to confront Saddam is already in place. There was never an armistice to end the last gulf war, only a ceasefire.
Because of Iraq's continued violation of the ceasefire's disarmament resolution, the ceasefire no longer exists. Canada must work with our allies to disarm this rogue Iraqi regime. We must work with our allies to ensure that UN resolutions are enforced.
I thank John Pepper and all the constituents from the Ottawa Valley who have written to me and for taking time to communicate their concerns. The House is divided about war in Iraq and so is the Canadian public. At the end of the day a position has to be taken and hopefully voted for here.
(1335)
When faced with the choice in taking Saddam at his word versus the safety and security of our citizens, trust that I together with my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance shall put Canadians first.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully and worked hard to follow the thread of the hon. member's thought. However I got lost along the way.
What does the hon. member intend to tell Mr. Pepper who was one of 90 peace demonstrators? Could she clarify for me her and her party's position that because their sense of the United Nations potential is not up to their bar, they are advocating war and going ahead with a war against Iraq outside of the United Nations with allies. Is that going to be the content of the hon. member's letter to Mr. Pepper?
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, we are here today to advocate the right of all parliamentarians to vote on whether we will participate in a war and so we all have an opportunity to concur with the decision of Parliament to go ahead with the continued war on terrorism now in Iraq.
I quoted the letter in which I was responding to Mr. Pepper. However once again I emphasize that when faced with the choice of either siding with Saddam, the way the government is, or putting the safety and security of Canadians first, I will side with the people of Canada.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is clear with John Pepper who made a very honourable stand on this issue.
The honourable thing for the opposition to do is to ask for a vote before we send the troops, not after. We cannot call back the troops when we start shooting. We cannot call back the troops when we start bombing. The vote has to take place before.
I hope, when the hon. member writes that letter to Mr. Pepper, she sends a copy of the motion which she proposes we support. I will not support this motion. If we are to have a vote, the vote has to be before, not after. Her party has a chance to change the motion now to have a vote tonight or tomorrow night or Tuesday next, before we send the troops, not after.
Will she make that change and come clean with Mr. Pepper? The honourable thing to do would be to change the motion.
(1340)
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the member across the floor ask his own leader, the Prime Minister, whether he will provide us with the opportunity to vote before the troops go to war.
We know the decision to go to war is an executive decision but we want the basic, fundamental democracy of having the ability, as the elected representatives of Canada, to participate in vote on such an important issue as our country participating in a war.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and thank the member for her speech. She has really hit the nail on the head.
What the parliamentary secretary, who is doing quite a bit of yelling all of a sudden, does not seem to understand is that Canadians expect the government to take the leadership role and show leadership. We understand that cabinet will receive information that most of us will not have in our possession, and understandably so for the sake of intelligence security and all that. I can understand that as do most people.
However what the member has pointed out loud and clear is once the decision is made by the cabinet, then it is time for it to convince the rest of us that its decision is correct and we should have a vote on that decision, not whether we call troops back. That man is way out to lunch. He does not understand the debate. That is the trouble with most of the government members. They do not seem to understand.
Take the leadership role, make a decision and convince me that the right decision has made on the basis of intelligence, then give me a vote on it. Is there anything wrong with that?
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, certainly the question that rings through my mind and the minds of Canadians across this great land is this. Will the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs state absolutely that there is positively no chance that people have been retained to launch these missing materials in Iraq, the anthrax, the VX, the mustard gas, the nuclear technology, into North America or into any of our other traditional allies' homelands? Can the ministers guarantee that there is no chance they will be attacked?
(1345)
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the next few weeks hold great uncertainty for our world. We could find ourselves at war, but with decisive action we might still achieve Iraqi disarmament by peaceful means.
War is a horrible thing. Let us avoid it if we can. However we cannot avoid war at all costs. If Iraq continues to challenge the will of the world, we must respond forcefully. The serious consequences of UN security resolution 1441 cannot be an effective threat without the understanding that we will follow up that threat with action. We are not at that point, but the Canadian people deserve to have this issue voted on in Parliament when we are. Today's motion is not a call to arms. It is a call for a democratic vote if military action in Iraq becomes a reality.
Any rational person does not want war if it can be avoided. The Canadian Alliance is very clear on this point. Just last week the leader of the official opposition stated in Parliament:
|
War is at worst horrific, and at best a terribly inadequate way of dealing with the problems of humanity. |
For peaceful nations like ours, Iraq is a difficult problem. Hussein is a dishonourable tyrant. Yet this does not excuse us to act in kind. We must show honour in the face of evil. Unlike Iraq, Canada is a nation founded on justice and due process. So too are our allies, Great Britain and the United States. It is for this reason that these nations brought their cases to the UN Security Council.
I have had my doubts of the ability of United Nations to resolve these situations in the past. With all of its competing interests, the organization often acts too slowly or not at all. How the UN responds to this crisis will decide a great deal about how effective it is viewed in the future. Still, I recognize that the UN is founded upon the same principles as Canada: freedom, tolerance, inclusiveness, equality and due process of law. It is these principles that give us our strength. When the UN strongly defends these principles, it deserves our support.
Obviously after 11 years we are past the point of letting Iraq delay any longer, but if giving weapons inspectors a few more weeks might gain Iraqi compliance, I support that. Hans Blix makes his final report on February 14. We owe it to peace to wait to see if there is improvement at that time.
As leaders we also need to face the alternative. We must admit that Saddam Hussein might not comply. Iraq has wilfully and systematically undermined every term of the 1991 gulf ceasefire and every resolution it agreed to in that time since. It is a brutal regime, with little or no respect for international law or even those basic rights of its own citizenry.
These facts are not in dispute. The UN has previously issued at least 30 statements citing specific violations of the 16 binding Security Council resolutions put in place at the end of the gulf war. With the passage of resolution 1441, a strong framework for responding to the threat of the Iraqi regime was established. Yet it his report on January 27, Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix stated the following:
|
Iraq appears not to have come to the genuine acceptance--not even today--of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace. |
Yesterday Colin Powell confirmed to the UN what Blix stated a week earlier; Iraq is in material breach of 1441. Satellite imagery and intercepted radio transmissions paint a grim picture of Iraq. As one intercepted radio transmission between two Iraqi officers clearly demonstrates, “Remove the expression “nerve agents” wherever it comes up in the wireless instructions”. It is pretty hard to believe that this is anything except a wilful attempt to hide these dangerous and banned weapons. It is also hard to believe this pattern of lies will change.
This comes to the crux of the difference between the Canadian Alliance and the Liberals: We have to send clear signals.
(1350)
The government's response to this crisis has been a miserable failure, playing one opposition party against another but saying nothing. That is not leadership. We need to send stronger signals that Iraq's continuing deceit will not be tolerated. Canadian non-action simply encourages non-compliance and more than anything else, this non-compliance risks war.
Without the buildup of U.S. forces in the region, one has to wonder whether Iraq would even pretend to co-operate. It should be remembered there was no end to the Kosovo genocide in the former Yugoslavia until NATO ground troops arrived in neighbouring Albania.
Even France, one of the most reluctant nations to go to war, is still preparing for that possibility. The Telegraph reported on February 4 that France sent an aircraft carrier, a nuclear submarine and other warships toward the gulf. The French defence minister stated, “French military forces will be ready to intervene in Iraq, should the decision be taken”. Our government has not even done that.
A strong response from all nations may have an effect on the situation in Iraq. Hans Blix has asked for more time, and I support giving it to him. However it must be made clear to Iraq that time is not unlimited.
Our government has done nothing. The only hope for a peaceful resolution is to send troops over there and to camp on Saddam's back door to show him that this threat is real. Our government has sat on the fence, a timid player at best. If all the other nations did that, we would have war.
We are being painted as warmongers, but nothing is further from the truth. We want peace. The way to achieve peace is to have the entire military force stare down Saddam Hussein's throat so he knows he has no choice but to disarm. That is how we will avoid a war.
Today is about a vote. Our party has put forward this motion. The wording is complicated, but in practice it is very simple. We are asking the House of Commons to promise to hold a vote if war becomes necessary to disarm Iraq. This is no different than what was asked for in 1991. We are waiting for more information to come to light. We are not voting on whether to send troops today. We believe that would be premature.
We are only want to be assured that should the time come, the government will allow every member of Parliament to express his or her conscience. This has become necessary because the government refuses to lead on this issue. It fears to be caught in the tides of public opinion or in the heated discussions of its caucus chambers. This is not leadership. The government's political selfishness is embarrassing to our country and dangerous to world peace.
In 1991, when the Liberals were in opposition, they demanded a vote when troops were sent to the gulf war. They said that the Canadian people had the right to have their voices heard. What has changed?
If we truly believe in our values, we should stand up for them, at home and abroad, not blindly as a tool to start wars, not blindly as an excuse to avoid them, but simply and with conviction. Hopefully we will never need such a vote. Hopefully Iraq will co-operate, but we need to prepare for the alternative. We need to show leadership. We need to show the UN and our western allies that we also support the rule of law and that we value democracy and due process. We need to show Saddam Hussein that if he subverts these principles, it is at his peril.
The difference between us and the government is we want to have a peaceful solution and we can do that by having a strong military presence so Saddam Hussein takes this threat seriously. The government has at best sat on the fence and flopped back and forth and side to side. If all western allies had done that, Saddam Hussein would be laughing at us and would continue to build weapons of mass destruction.
I ask members to vote in favour of this motion so they can exercise their democratic right as their leader demanded in 1991.
(1355)
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that France had sent vessels to the area. I want him to know that we have many vessels in the area, one of them in the Arabian Sea.
Would he be good enough to check his facts and come back to us to correct his statement saying that we have no troops in the area. We have them in the area and we have a vessel in the Arabian Sea. For my colleague's information, geographically the Arabian Sea is very close to Iraq. If he does not know that, he knows it now.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware. In fact on Sunday I was there when the HMCS Regina sailed off. I have seen many ships leave from the harbour of greater Victoria. I have spoken to the men and women aboard ships going to the war in Afghanistan and patrolling the oil embargos.
We stand behind those men and women who are defending our country. The difference is that our country has waffled and flopped back and forth on taking a position. It has not been strong. It has not been out there saying that the way to disarm that man is to say that if he continues to subvert the process and make a mockery of it, we will be there with all of our force and might, whatever we have to offer, with our allies to ensure that the peaceful democratic world is not put at risk by that raging tyrant.
It is only through a strong military presence staring down the throat of Saddam Hussein will there be a possibility of having a peaceful resolution to this matter. That is the only thing that man could possibly listen to. The only reason Saddam Hussein has come as far as he has, that he has pretended to co-operate, is that the Americans have been staring down his throat and it is time we did the same.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the contentions of the hon. member that the only way to solve a dilemma like Saddam Hussein and Iraq is to have him staring at the end of a gun. The incongruity is that the member quoted his leader and what his comments were initially with regard to war as an instrument of state craft.
My difficulty also extends to the comments that there has been no leadership on this side of the House. Support has been given by the government to bring the United States into the Security Council, to support the tenets and articles of resolution 1441. To stand firm in all regards on putting the pressure in a united, multilateral way on Saddam Hussein has been very much part and parcel of the initiatives taken by the government.
I am at a loss to determine just what leadership is according to the member's definition. Is it only to be at the end of a gun? Is it not to include all of the work that we have done with the United Nations for many decades?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, if the member thinks that she is going to sit across the table from Saddam Hussein and find a nice, peaceful resolution and believe it, after what he has done in the last 11 years, it is ridiculous. If that man is going to respond, and hopefully he does for the sake of world peace, it will only be from a real threat of military action against that country and nothing else.
For the member to suggest that her government can take credit for resolution 1441, the truth be known, we are not even thought of by the other nations. Our name never comes up with the major players. Canada is a very small bean because of the Prime Minister's inability to get involved with the other leaders. He has hurt the Canadian reputation so badly through his inaction, through his lack of leadership, that we are not even taken seriously. That really could hurt Canada's interests in the future.
Statements by Members
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[Translation]
Shirley L. Thomson
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House of the important contribution made by Shirley L. Thomson to Canada's arts community.
When she was named director of the Canada Council for the Arts on January 1, 1998, a position she held until last December, with distinction I might add, she brought with her with her already vast experience as director of the National Gallery of Canada for ten years, and director of the McCord Museum in Montreal in the early 1980s.
Ms. Thomson was also the first chair of the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies.
A champion of funding for arts and culture, Ms. Thomson has worked tirelessly to develop the arts in society.
The triple E formula is often mentioned in this House, with respect to the other place; we might describe Ms. Thomson as a triple E woman: she is erudite, elegant and eloquent.
On behalf of all artists in Canada, I want to thank her for everything she has done for us.
* * *
[English]
Member for LaSalle--Émard
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the former finance minister's leadership campaign is a non-event. What it needs is a symbol, but what would work for the man who has everything except a fixed position? He has had more flip-flops than a catfish in a canoe. On democratic reform, Kyoto, election finance, you name it, the position seems to depend on the audience, not on any firmly held views. So I went looking for some ideas.
I said to the weather vane, “Any way the wind blows, you would be a good symbol”. He said, “No way. I have a fixed position”. I talked to the middle of the road and said, “How about you?” She said, “No. You know where I stand. Right in the middle”. Then I ran into a chameleon. The chameleon said, “I could be a good symbol because when there is trouble, I am very hard to find and when I am under stress, I change to suit my nearest environment just to blend in”.
There is my contribution to the former finance minister's leadership campaign, a new symbol: the chameleon. It is a great symbol. It could have been a dead skunk.
* * *
Food Freedom Day
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is Food Freedom Day. Today Canadians have earned enough money to pay for their entire year's food supply. It takes just 37 days out of the whole year for the average Canadian to pay for his or her groceries.
In 1999 Canadians spent 10% of their personal disposable income on food. That compares to 13% in France, 15% in Germany and 33% in Mexico.
Farmers are earning just a fraction of the average food dollar. While Food Freedom Day is February 6, January 9 is the day on which we have paid for the farmer's amount. That is right, it takes only nine days to pay the farmer for a whole year's worth of food.
Nine cents of a $1.50 loaf of bread is returned to the farmer. Sixteen cents goes to the dairy farmer on a $1.50 glass of milk. A waiter or waitress in a restaurant earns more on tips for serving the food than the farmer who produces it in the first place.
We need to recognize our primary producers so that Food Freedom Day can be a day that everyone can celebrate, including our farmers.
If you ate today, thank a farmer.
* * *
Family Mediation
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to express my support for the “Helping Families Succeed” initiative that has been launched by Family Mediation Canada, a national organization dedicating its efforts today to raising public awareness of the benefits of mediation.
Canadians have clearly signalled that families need services like mediation when parents separate or divorce.
While the amendments proposed in Bill C-22 are a very positive and timely step forward, changes to the law by themselves are not enough to improve the family justice system in Canada. Services are needed to ease the conflict and stress that come with separation and divorce and to help parents while they are making decisions about the care of their children.
Some parents need support to make decisions about their children's care. They need tools to help them minimize conflict, cooperate and work out child focused parenting arrangements. Alternative methods of resolving conflict, like mediation, can help Canadian families achieve these goals.
* * *
Queen's Golden Jubilee Medals
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the recipients of the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal for northern Saskatchewan.
They are Adam Charles from Stanley Mission; Carol Janvier from La Loche; Jason Robillard from Stoney Rapids; Francis P. Hankey from Goodsoil; Lloyd Yew from Dillon; Rachel Jobb from Southend; Leonard Adam from Fond Du Lac; Robert H. Gardiner from Île à La Crosse; Sheldon Natawayes from Sandy Bay; Marcia Merasty from Flying Dust; Robert Augier Jr. from Uranium City; Ovid Campbell from Beauval; Alice Tataryn from Anglin Lake; Oscar Beatty from Deschambault Lake; John Carriere from Cumberland House; Tammy Cook Searson from Lac La Ronge; Carol Gillis from Buffalo Narrows; Ron Michel from Pelican Narrows; Terri Daniels from Wollaston Lake; and George Smith from Pine House.
The honourees were equally recognized as elders, youth, women and men. I ask members to join me in congratulating these very special individuals.
* * *
(1405)
Conditional Sentences
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to ensure that sentences actually reflect the magnitude of the crime.
Two street racers each received conditional sentences of two years less a day and three years probation following their convictions for criminal negligence causing death. Irene Thorpe, out for an evening stroll, was struck and killed by one of them as they raced their cars on a Vancouver street. This sentence is entirely inappropriate. Criminal negligence causing death carries a maximum of life in prison. Allowing these men to spend their entire sentences at home devalues the life of their victim.
On the same day that these two were sent home as punishment, two others were allegedly racing on a street in Abbotsford. One of them T-boned a car driven by an elderly couple, completely destroying both vehicles. The estimated speed was more than 100 kilometres per hour. Police say it is a miracle the victims survived at all. The conditional sentences handed down earlier that day obviously had no deterrent effect.
Why is the government so reluctant to send a message that Canadians will not tolerate this carnage being inflicted on innocent victims?
* * *
Eating Disorders
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, disordered eating constitutes a spectrum of behaviour such as compulsive eating, unhealthy body fat, anorexia and bulimia nervosa and habitual dieting. Obesity affects one-quarter of Canadians. Some 1% to 2% of our population are diagnosed with anorexia nervosa and 3% to 5% with bulimia. One in four adolescents exhibit disordered eating habits and behaviours. Disordered eating can affect any socioeconomic status or gender. There is no single cause or cure, but the negative health effects are clear.
February 2 to 8 is recognized by health professionals as a week to increase awareness of disordered eating. I urge the federal government to take steps to increase public education on this issue and officially proclaim February 2 to 8 eating disorders week.
* * *
[Translation]
Circus Industry
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers started from nothing and are now among the best in the circus business. The 24th Festival mondial du cirque de demain de Paris decided to put the spotlight on Quebec by honouring, last Sunday, the Quebec circus.
This tribute is not the result of a sudden interest. In less than 20 years, Quebec has become a key nation in the development of circus arts. The Quebec circus has a distinct identity and style. It is the Middle Ages meets street theatre, with computers and tight management.
Quebec performers found themselves under the prestigious big top of the Cirque d'hiver de Paris. Mr. Daniel Cyr, from the Cirque Éloize, won a silver medal in competition.
Denys Tolstov, of the Cirque du Soleil, won a bronze medal for his impressive handstand performance. The young troupe Les sept doigts de la main won the Youri-Nikouline trophy, given to clowns under 30 years of age, for Diabolo juggling and balance.
Bravo to these artists and long live the circus.
* * *
Community Access Centres
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on January 27, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs announced, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, a contribution of $136,000 to open eight community access centres in the riding of Repentigny.
The minister said the following:
|
Repentigny residents will benefit from affordable, convenient Internet access. The Community Access Program is an excellent example of partnership among governments, business and community groups. |
Since 1995, more than 1,400 sites have been approved and set up in Quebec for a total investment of more than $33 million by the Government of Canada.
This is yet another example, among many, of the federal government's constant funding for projects to—
(1410)
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
* * *
[English]
Northern B.C. Winter Games
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Friday, February 7 marks the official opening of the 28th annual northern B.C. winter games. The games are being tri-hosted by the district of Fort St. James, the district of Vanderhoof and the village of Fraser Lake, all located in my riding of Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
Fourteen hundred participants from 35 different central interior and northern communities will compete in 21 different sporting events. Twelve hundred volunteers will support and coordinate the games, all fulfilling the games' mission statement “to be the northern opportunity for community and sport development”.
It is a great honour for me to represent these communities in the great riding of Prince George—Bulkley Valley. I look forward to participating in the celebrations this week.
I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing them well in the most successful B.C. winter games.
* * *
[Translation]
Black History Month
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Black History Month is a celebration designed to recall, recognize and teach the importance of the history of Blacks in North America.
In Canada, this month was firstcelebrated in the 1970s and has now become an annual event celebrated across the country, particularly in large urban centres.
[English]
In order to honour and recognize Black History Month, the Government of Canada established the Mathieu Da Costa Challenge Awards in February 1996.
Mathieu Da Costa was the first of many persons of black ancestry to contribute to the building of Canada, the first recorded black person in Canada, arriving at the start of the 1600s, an interpreter who succeeded in bridging the linguistic gap between the Mi'kmaq people and the French explorers.
The Mathieu Da Costa challenge encourages students to research, discover and celebrate the contributions of Canadians of diverse ethnic and racial origins to the building of Canadian society. It helps them to develop a more inclusive notion of Canadian citizenship and identity and it underscores the values of equality, respect and tolerance which should inspire us all.
* * *
Black History Month
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker, February is Black History Month, a month in which we recognize the significant contributions that people of black heritage have made to Canada.
As a major terminal on the underground railway, Windsor was a central destination for those escaping slavery in the U.S., many of whom settled in and greatly enriched the development of the Windsor region.
Black Canadians have, in the fields of science, medicine, business, the military, politics, arts and sports, made Canada a richer country. In every walk of life, people of black heritage have played an important but unfortunately often overlooked role in the development and growth of this nation.
During Black History Month and throughout the year I encourage people to celebrate our diverse multicultural heritage. In particular, I encourage my colleagues to take the time to celebrate the many contributions that people of black heritage have made to Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
Semaine des Enseignantes et des Enseignants au Québec
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the week of February 2 to 8 is the Semaine des enseignantes et des enseignants in Quebec.
I want to praise the extraordinary job that these women and men do for our youth. Who among us does not have unforgettable memories of a teacher who, at some point in our life, made our eyes sparkle with the joy of learning?
In the fall, these women and men reach out to the upcoming generation by awakening in them a passion for life and for knowledge as well as a desire to work together to find new ways of building a better world.
At a time when the problem of dropouts has become acute, we know that we can count on the creativity and imagination of our teachers to better prepare our youth for the future.
Recognizing the uniqueness of each young person and working steadfastly to fully develop each one's potential are the challenges facing our teachers who, day in and day out, shape the future of our youth and of Quebec as well.
* * *
[English]
Anti-Smoking Campaign
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a strong, courageous and inspiring woman. Barb Tarbox is a 41 year old woman who has made it her crusade to teach Canadians, primarily young Canadians, about the fact that smoking kills.
This mother and wife, a former international model, is generously dedicating what are said to be her final days to speak with young Canadians across the country. She has already spoken to more than 20,000 teens.
Today Ms. Tarbox is here in Ottawa to share her story, a story that is simple but compelling: that smoking kills and all of us have a responsibility to ensure that our children do not start smoking and, for those who do, that they stop.
I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Ms. Tarbox for doing more than her part to reduce smoking among young Canadians.
* * *
(1415)
Health Care
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the good news is that more money has been put into health care. The bad news is, it is not enough. The territories and several of the provinces have said it is not enough to do the job that has to be done.
The side story is that health care funding will be delivered outside the Canada health and social transfer formula. However, we have to make sure that money is dedicated to education. We will now see how much money actually goes into education and we will find that it is very little.
By investing in our youth we avoid heavy health and social costs down the road. We must educate our young people to accept the responsibilities they will face in this country. The future of the country lies on the shoulders of our youth. We have to make sure we invest in education so that they will be able to carry that responsibility and make sure we continue to--
The Speaker: Order. Oral questions.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Health
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last night the premiers and the Prime Minister signed a deal that is a commendable start to improving health care for Canadians.
Among the positive features are funding to restore the core of the health care system, flexibility for provinces in implementing new services and no restrictions on private health care delivery within the public system. Now of course--
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: We had better get on to the question. The preamble is taking a long time because of various interruptions. I urge the hon. leader to put his question so we can get on with it.
Mr. Stephen Harper: What Canadians really want, of course, is better access to doctors and hospital beds and shorter waiting lists.
I ask the Prime Minister, how long will Canadians have to wait to see this agreement lead to real improvement in the delivery of health care services?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): First, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we have an agreement. The Canadian people using the hospital system will benefit.
Second, I am very happy too that all the premiers and the leaders of the territories agreed that the five conditions of medicare should be completely protected.
Third, they have agreed that the priorities that were put on the table should be acceptable to all and specific money should be directed to these priorities. It is the first time that we have an agreement where everybody is in agreement on the orientation to have a better health system in Canada.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will admit that the federal-provincial deal is a framework at this point in which many details are left to be worked out, including primary care reform, home care services, catastrophic drug coverage, the accountability and reporting framework and, of course, participation of territorial governments.
My question for the Prime Minister is, how can the House be assured that these details will be worked out without negotiations getting bogged down in federal-provincial wrangling?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I tabled a document that has been accepted by the premiers. I said, “If you want to have the money you have to accept this agreement”. I did not advance the money on the table definitively unless they were to accept this agreement. The document has been tabled, circulated and approved by all the premiers of the provinces.
Of course they wanted more money. I wish I had more money, but the reality is that we are giving $17.3 billion of new money over three years. I never thought I would be able to do that much.
(1420)
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would stay away from the rhetoric about money and pressure and concentrate on cooperation to get the details worked out.
The deal signed yesterday commits to establishing a health council to monitor and make annual reports. The health council will work with representatives from the provinces, the federal government, research institutions and existing organizations.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When will this council begin its work, how will the council make decisions and how will it monitor improvements to the health care system?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a system where all the premiers agreed with me that it is very important that accountability and transparency be well understood by the people. They said they would collaborate, that we would be able from there on to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges, and the provinces would compare their success in relation to the others.
If the federal government is not doing in its own jurisdiction the appropriate work that it should do, we will be able to know that, compared to the provincial governments. It is an accountability and clarity that will be very useful in the system.
* * *
Iraq
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957, Lester Pearson said:
|
--the predatory state...with power of total destruction, is no more to be tolerated than the predatory individual. |
What will it take for the government to get off the fence and join the growing international coalition that says they will no longer tolerate the actions of Saddam Hussein?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have had the same position since last summer. We said no activities, and that war cannot start there unless there is an agreement with approval of the Security Council. In resolution 1441 it has demanded that some inspectors go there and do the job. We have said they have to do their job and report back.
Next week Dr. Blix will report again, and the Security Council will advise. If the Security Council approves the beginning of the war, of course Canada is always there to play its role.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the fence is a precarious perch.
A former prime minister said:
|
While we can be grateful indeed for the United Nations intervention in this matter, I think we can also be grateful for the action taken by the United States in bringing its action to the United Nations. I think we can support, as the United Kingdom has supported and in every appropriate way, the position of the United States at the United Nations. |
That was Lester Pearson again, during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Is that quote not just as referable today to the situation in Iraq?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians will make our own policies. I remember that I was a member of the House of Commons when the government did not support the intervention of the Americans in the Vietnam war.
We were not there. They asked us to be there. We were not. We are not always there. We make our own decisions, but I do say, yes, Saddam Hussein has to disarm. He has to respect resolution 1441. He has some more days to comply and he is taking a big risk if he does not comply soon.
* * *
[Translation]
Health
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada has not responded to the immediate needs of Quebec and the provinces as far as health funding is concerned, despite the fact that Ottawa has the means to do so.
How can the Prime Minister explain, especially to patients, that he has all the leeway necessary to pay the $5.4 billion that is being asked for, but has decided not to go all the way, even though the surplus will be at least $9 billion, according to the Minister of Finance?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, $2.5 billion will be transferred to the provinces on March 31, 2003, and a total of $17 billion in new money over the next three years, over and above what is being transferred under this year's budget.
He wanted more. I would have been surprised if he had said “That is too much”. In my opinion, $17 billion over three years is a lot of money.
(1425)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a lot, but this comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Quebec and of the provinces, not his pockets or those of the Liberal Party. It is our own money.
The federal government is telling us that, if the federal surplus is greater than the contingency reserve in the next budget, the Prime Minister has committed to transferring up to $2 billion more.
This year, we already know there will be much more than $2 billion over and above the contingency reserve, and that it could be transferred this year. Why is he not doing so?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have referred to $2.5 billion by year end, but there is another $1.5 billion set aside this year to make it possible to give the provinces $500 million a year for equipment over the next three years.
There is nothing that delights me more than to hear questions like these coming from Bloc Quebecois members, as only a few years ago they wanted out of Canada because the country was bankrupt. All of a sudden, they beleive that the Canadian government is managing public affairs too well and has too much money.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the end of the meeting with his provincial counterparts, the Prime Minister said that when it comes to health care, it will always be difficult.
Does the Prime Minister not understand that the main reason there are problems in health care in Canada is that his government has cut health care funding since 1994 and he persists in refusing to put back the money needed to provide health care?
Simply put, he is the one with the money, and the provinces are the ones with the obligations. That is the real problem.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have provided $17 billion for the next three years. This is new money added to the budget starting April 1, 2003. That is the reality.
I would like to remind the hon. member that Quebec ranks 9 out of 10 when it comes to spending its own money for patients in the province. Perhaps they should do a bit more themselves before pointing the finger at others.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all of the experts who have studied health care, Mr. Romanow, Mr. Kirby, and Michel Clair in Quebec, all agree on one thing: the huge amounts needed to support the health care system.
How can the Prime Minister—who has the money that is needed—justify to the public, including Shawinigan's ER, the fact that he is not even providing half of the money needed to fix the health care system?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Romanow report called for $15 billion over the next three years. What we offered yesterday was $17 billion in new money, money that will be added to provincial budgets over the next three years.
I think I may have made a mistake; maybe I should have stopped at $15 billion.
[English]
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
This morning the three northern territorial premiers condemned the new health accord, pointing out that the Prime Minister ignored the appalling third world health conditions among aboriginal peoples and the failure of per capita funding to provide the desperately needed resources in the north.
Why did the Prime Minister ignore Romanow? Why did he ignore all of the premiers in this shameful betrayal of northern and aboriginal Canadians? Specifically, why will the Prime Minister not establish a separate northern health fund of at least $60 million for the three northern territories?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were discussing a formula on a per capita basis and, of course, the per capita basis is not satisfactory for the territorial governments.
I said to the three leaders that this is a different type of problem. It makes no sense to treat them exactly the same way as the provinces because their populations are too small.
I said there will be other meetings. We will adjust the health requirements for the people of the north on a bilateral basis because it could not be treated the same way as the provinces on a per capita basis. That makes no sense at all for them.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made the same promise in 2000, and northern and aboriginal Canadians are still waiting for that promise to be kept.
One of the greatest threats to medicare in Canada is the growth of private for profit health care delivery combined with the impact of corporate trade deals.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, why is it that his health accord is totally silent on the new public health dollars going into private for profit health care and why did the Prime Minister try to appoint Don Mazankowski, the king of the privatizers, as the new chair of the Canada health council?
(1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the agreement of all the premiers of all the provinces that the five conditions of medicare will be respected.
It is the law of the land that all of the provinces must respect and if they do not respect the five conditions of medicare, they will face the normal penalties that we had to carry out previously when some provinces did not respect the five conditions of medicare.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister stood in his place yesterday and admitted that the government is playing a shell game with new money versus old money in health care.
As evidence of that, the provinces are saying they are getting $12 billion, the federal government is saying $17 billion, and the health minister is saying something else. She is completely confused on how much new money is going in.
Will the Prime Minister stand up and tell us how much money is really going into the new health care accord?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, new money, above the budget for this year for every one of these provinces, represents $17.3 billion of new money.
They say that the money that we had promised three years ago that is new money this year is not new money any more. We have not paid it yet. It is old new money versus new new money. For me, new money is new money. Paying in $5 or in $10, it is the same money.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr. Speaker, would it not be nice if the Prime Minister learned to add and subtract? He knows how to subtract, but his addition is still off.
Is it not interesting that yesterday the provinces grudgingly accepted the deal, yet the territorial ministers could not and that is where the need is the greatest? Our aboriginal people suffer the most in terms of health care. Is that the final chapter? Is that the legacy the Prime Minister will leave in the aboriginal community, this scanty bit of money for those people with the greatest need?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it makes no sense to deal with the territories on a per capita basis. It is why I told them that we have to make a special agreement with them in the weeks to come, and it would be new new money, no doubt about it.
What is surprising is that none of those members talk about the sick people who will be benefiting from what we did yesterday.
* * *
Iraq
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister said in the House:
|
...if the opposition believes that the government is not doing its job properly, it can always vote non-confidence. |
The motion before us today gives the House the opportunity to express its confidence in the government by voting on any decision it might take before sending our military into a war with Iraq.
Here is a chance for the Prime Minister to back his words with action. Will he support the motion before the House today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition wants us to vote today about a decision that we might never have to make because if Saddam Hussein obliges and respects resolution 1441 there will be no need for any vote at all.
If it wants to vote, it can always use an opposition day the day after the decision. It can use one of its 14 days where it can have a votable motion, and we will vote. But it depends on the opposition. If it wants to use its privilege of one of those 14 days where we can vote, it must use one of those days for that occasion.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wish the Prime Minister would read the motion.
However, since he is suggesting that we do not need this motion today because the rules already provide for motions of opposition non-confidence, if that is what he is saying, well then I will take the Prime Minister up on his offer.
If he will guarantee that he will schedule an official opposition allotted day the day after the government makes a decision to involve Canadian troops, then we will withdraw our motion right here, right now.
(1435)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the opposition wants to do that, I have no objection. It is exactly why we have opposition days, for serious matters, not the usual frivolity that it puts on the floor of the House of Commons.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs described Secretary of State Colin Powell's evidence as convincing.
Is the doubt that Mr. Powell raised in the mind of the minister not in itself enough to show the need to increase the effectiveness of the inspections and the number of inspectors?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I explained this morning before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, that is precisely what the Security Council is seized of. Mr. Blix is going to Baghdad. What Mr. Colin Powell presented yesterday was extraordinarily well documented. Baghdad has to give answers. Mr. Blix is committed, he will go there and appear again before the Security Council on February 14. At that time we will know if inspections are no longer needed or what decisions need to be made.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is all well and good to say that we support the inspections process, but that is not enough. Yesterday, France and Russia offered resources. Canada talks only of taking part in the war.
Concretely, in terms of materiel, personnel, transport facilities and communications, what does the government intend to offer the inspectors so that they can fully and peacefully disarm Saddam Hussein?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I explained this morning in committee, the Canadian government has always offered Mr. Blix and the inspectors all the support they want from our country.
I personally spoke with Mr. Blix and we wrote to him. There are Canadian inspectors on the team. We are very proud of the work they are doing for the international community. We continue to support this inspection process with everything in our power.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a multilateral predeployment of military forces to the gulf is necessary to force Saddam Hussein to respect resolution 1441. Unfortunately, yesterday the defence minister said that Canadian Forces are “...making contingency plans in terms of various possibilities in Afghanistan...” This is unacceptable. Canada's place should not be on the sidelines.
To prevent war, does the minister not agree that predeploying troops to the gulf would help pressure Saddam Hussein to comply with resolution 1441?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member only captured part of what I said yesterday. I said that as is always the case for the military, we are always considering contingencies of various kinds for the future so that we are ready when the government instructs the military what to do.
We were in Afghanistan last summer. It is conceivable we may be there at some time in the future. We are also discussing with the Americans, as I have said many times, the possibility of our participation in Iraq should the government so decide.
There are many possible contingencies and we are considering many of them at the same time.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning the foreign affairs minister said that Canada was not absent on this issue.
Regrettably, the government's record of engagement has been to sit on the fence. In fact, the minister has ruled out every option available to the Canadian government and has instead insisted that Hans Blix, France or the United Nations should decide Canadian foreign policy.
How can we pretend Canada is engaged when the minister allows the veto power of other governments to decide our participation in any potential action?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the government is engaged in a very active policy of supporting a UN system which is a possible solution to an enormously grave problem in the world. That is our policy and that is why we pushed it.
It may not be the policy that the opposition likes. I know what the opposition's policy is because it has said it over and over again: if the Americans ask, go for it. We have heard that.
I do not consider that a policy. It is a nice easy thing to do, but we have followed a much more complicated, much more difficult, but responsible policy that responds to the needs of the world and the needs of this particular crisis.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has indicated that he is open to temporarily imposing an export tax on Canadian softwood lumber destined for the United States, in exchange for free access to the American market.
Is the minister aware that Canada is weakening its position by voluntarily imposing an export tax on itself, because the Americans could then claim that this voluntary tax is proof that countervailing duties were justified?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my position has not changed. We adopted this position last year with the support of all the provinces. My position has always been to say that we will take our case against the Americans before the WTO and NAFTA. We have a very good case, and the initial decisions were in our favour.
However, since this process takes a long time, we have determined that it would useful to have a dialogue with the Americans to establish a long-term policy for unlimited access to the American market for Canadian softwood lumber.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in this matter, the minister has made several commitments, in particular, not to resort to a voluntary tax. Despite what he has said today in the House, the minister is changing his position.
Will he make a formal commitment not to enter into any provisional agreement that would continue to penalize our businesses and would result in abandoning legal actions already before the WTO and NAFTA?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with the Canadian industry all across Canada. I will continue to work with the Government of Quebec and the Government of British Columbia. I will continue to reflect a consensus that we developed in our approach, which is to obtain unlimited access to the American market for Canadian softwood lumber companies, on the basis of free trade, throughout North America.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the federal government includes responsibility for international trade agreements. At the softwood talks in Washington the provinces and industry tabled various export tax proposals.
Why is it that everyone but the federal government is taking the lead?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for accompanying me for those two days in Washington. With what we have been going through, it has been very useful.
The Government of Canada likes working with the provinces. We appreciate their contributions because they are essential to this process as they manage the forestry programs and regimes in this country.
However, we are negotiating and Mr. Doug Waddell is the leader of those negotiations. He is a great co-ordinator. We listen to other people. We are in charge. We are doing a great job these days in Washington.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the U.S. lumber lobby is demanding that any softwood deal requires Canada to drop its legal challenges through NAFTA and WTO.
Will the minister assure the House that Canada will not drop its legal options unless the provinces and industry are in agreement?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the position of our government has not changed. We are on a two track approach. This two track approach was adopted by all the provinces and was supported widely by industry. We are continuing with our challenges before the WTO and NAFTA.
In the meantime, we are having dialogue. I had lunch on Tuesday with about 20 chief executive officers of the softwood lumber industry. We are all working together to bring a resolution to this issue. What we want is unrestricted market access to the United States.
* * *
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, considering the widespread opposition to genetically engineered wheat by overseas buyers, and considering that several agricultural groups, including the national farmers union, oppose the introduction of genetically engineered wheat, could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food inform the House as to whether he will refrain from approving the release in Canada of genetically engineered wheat?
(1445)
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has not yet reviewed the submissions for roundup ready wheat. There is a process where the Canadian Food Inspection Agency reviews such a submission for safety to animals and safety to the environment. Health Canada reviews the submission for safety to humans. That evaluation certainly is not complete because the submission has just come in.
I can assure the House and Canadians that submission will be conducted and that evaluation will be very thorough because we understand the concerns of everyone on this issue.
* * *
Airline Industry
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada's airline industry is once again on the brink of a crisis. Air Canada announced a $364 million loss, threats of 10,000 lost jobs and a cancellation of regional flights.
Government security taxes and increases to NavCan fees continue to damage an already struggling industry. Overcapacity on routes where Air Canada is trying to drive out low cost carriers is jeopardizing all carriers.
The government needs to listen to those who say to get rid of the security tax and regulate capacity. This is the way to help the industry. When will the minister react?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the air security charge, the Minister of Finance has said that this is under review, and one can assume that he might have something to say about that shortly.
With respect to the other suggestion about re-regulating the domestic air industry, this flies in the face of conventional wisdom and the good of the consumer. The fact is that, yes, today there is some turmoil in the marketplace but the fact is that people have the lowest fares in history, and that has come as a result of deregulation.
The issue with Air Canada is a much more complex one which I would be willing to elaborate on in a supplementary.
* * *
Human Resources Development
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in spite of all the hype from the Treasury Board about government online, HRDC is removing all the electronic job search kiosks from public places on March 1. The 14 job kiosks in my riding alone recorded over 150,000 hits in a single year.
In light of the obvious need and demand for this service, will the minister agree to postpone the decision, leave the kiosks where they are and, if anything, upgrade them to provide an even better service to the thousands of Canadians who use them every day?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say to the hon. member that my focus continues to be to ensure that Canadians have the best service possible from my department.
He speaks about online service and indeed that is what Canadians want. These external kiosks are dumb terminals and can only provide information on one program. What we have found is that Canadians prefer to use the Internet.
In the member's own riding there are a number of sites across the riding, whether they be in our local human resources centres or in 19 public libraries, that will provide this service to his constituents.
* * *
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, yesterday the parliamentary secretary answered a question but, in his excitement about answering a question for the first time, I think he made an error that needs to be corrected.
With respect to the department's proposed export tax, he said “we are going to make sure that all provinces are treated equally”. That statement is wrong and it could jeopardize the Atlantic Canada exemption costing millions of dollars to the Atlantic Canadian industry.
Will the minister retract the statement that all provinces will be treated equally under the softwood export tax and correct the record?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. We are not going to renegotiate the situation of Atlantic Canada that has been exempted. We are trying to exempt the rest of Canada. That is the objective of the government.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, if only he could do that job he would he a hero but he has not been able to do it.
Anyway, the record is straight. There is not equal treatment across the country.
However the export tax design draft dated February 4, yesterday's date, says “A key feature of the export tax design would be to discourage production during times of low lumber prices. To do this the export tax should increase as prices fall”.
Will the minister confirm that his proposal for a fluctuating tax rate will be determined by a U.S. publication and that Revenue Canada will be collecting this Canadian tax as calculated using the U.S. information?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the government wants is unrestricted access to the United States market for softwood lumber. What the government will not do is what the Conservatives did in 1986 when they imposed an export tax and did not solve the problem for the long term. Now we are at it every four or five years.
* * *
(1450)
Airline Industry
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government currently presides over the most disastrous airline policy in the history of the country. From higher prices to the failure of Canadian Airlines, to unending user fees and security taxes, the government has brought the airline industry to the brink. The minister refers to it as a little turmoil.
Today Air Canada slapped a for sale sign on its Jazz subsidiary to continue its dogfight with WestJet. Air Canada itself has run up a $12 billion debt.
What specific steps will the government take to protect the air travellers and the airline industry in the country?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the airline industry around the world has faced turbulence since September 11, 2001. It is being exacerbated by the current tensions in the Middle East and the spiral of fuel prices.
When the hon. member talks about airline policy, I might remind him that it was his party, the Reform Party in 2000, that supported the government and Bill C-26. As the Alliance, it supported us on Bill C-23.
I thought the opposition was supporting the government, so we spoke with one voice on airline policy. I think the Alliance members should recognize the truth.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we did not support the $24 tax, this cash cow for the government that brought the airline industry to the brink.
Once again the employees of Jazz face an uncertain future. The former minister of finance imposed the $24 tax while milking the industry with higher airport rents.
How can Canadians trust the government when it continues to treat the entire airline industry as a cash cow to put into general revenues? How can Canadians possibly trust the future with this minister or this government?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the hon. member could have added more to the debate than just the rhetoric of going after the air security charge, which the Minister of Finance has said is under review.
The fact is that there are two major airlines in the United States under chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. There have been failures around the world. There are international tensions. We have to work this issue out and we have to be supportive of the airline industry.
However the end result will have to be a restructured Air Canada so we can have long term viability in the airline industry.
* * *
[Translation]
Agriculture
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the discussions on the agriculture policy framework have stalled. The minister decided to throw his weight around. Farmers are worried and do not like it that what they had negotiated with the Quebec government is being called into question.
Will the Minister of Agriculture listen to all the stakeholders in Quebec and agree to channel the financial mechanisms he is proposing through the Financière agricole du Québec, yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a government we have said very clearly that we will treat every farmer in similar circumstances in Canada the same with the federal support.
Even the minister in the province of Quebec in 2001, at a federal-provincial ministers meeting, agreed that we needed to move to a basic program of crop insurance and the NISA, including a disaster payment.
However, that does not prohibit provinces, such as Quebec, as they have in the past and can continue to do in the future, from supporting their producers as they see fit above and beyond that. We live in a country where the provinces can do that if they so wish.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is brushing aside objections by the farmers' unions and the provincial ministers.
Is it not time for the Prime Minister to step in to avoid having the farmers pay for the intransigence of this minister, who no longer seems to care about the interests of farmers?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, more consultations have taken place with the ministers and the agricultural industry in the last 18 to 20 months than have ever taken place in the development and the design of the present and the future business risk management programs that we have. That has been very successful. We had a very successful agriculture ministers meeting last week in Toronto.
There is still more work to be done and more progress to be made but I can assure the member that we have accomplished and met pretty well all the desires of the primary producers, and we will continue to do the best job we--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I beg to disagree. The government is hanging our farmers out to dry with this agriculture policy framework. No agreement has been reached with either the provinces or the farm groups regarding safety nets. The April 1 deadline is fast approaching with no agreement. The federal safety net proposals to date will have farmers paying higher premiums for lower benefits.
Why is the federal agriculture minister shoving a bad deal down the throats of our farmers?
(1455)
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member, as a member of the committee, had a presentation this morning which showed, for example, that the amount of money that a farmer needs to invest to ensure stabilization and disaster coverage is considerably less on an annual basis than it has been in the past. It will also give coverage to producers for back to back disasters if that unfortunately is the situation. It will also give immediate coverage for beginning farmers. It will be very affordable. It will be more trade receptive than we are at the present time. I could go on.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister could go on but the farmers will not be any better off. I can guarantee that.
The $1.1 billion that is supposed to come out every year is in a program that has a rolling effect to it. In fact, if the money is not paid out, it rolls to the next year and then to the next year. What we will be seeing is farmers not getting $1.1 billion a year like they have in the past.
This agriculture policy framework is putting less money into the pockets of farmers and the minister had better explain to farmers why that should be.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, until the Prime Minister and I made the announcement last June, the farmers had $600 million from the federal government for business risk management, and then we went on an ad hoc basis each year. The farmers, the provinces and the producers did not know what other support was there.
We now have $1.1 billion a year there for each of the next five years, and that security is there. I can assure the hon. member that if he takes a look at that he would see that for farmers to have a 70% coverage of a $100,000 production margin, they only need to put $3,500 down on the--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yukon.
* * *
Health
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given the unique circumstances and special conditions in the north and the fact that the territorial governments did not agree with the health care accord yesterday, could the government please tell us how it plans to solidify this important partnership for the effective delivery of health care in the north.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that we are very aware of the unique circumstances of the three territories. One is dealing with very small populations over very large areas and some unique and pressing health issues.
I have made the commitment to my three health minister colleagues, as well as the three territorial leaders, that as soon as they want to sit down with me to talk about how we can implement this accord in the territories to serve the interests of their people, I will be happy to do so at their convenience.
* * *
Aboriginal Affairs
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it has been about a year now since Dakota Tipi first nation was put under federal government management. Since that time, incidents of violence, including stabbings and beatings, have increased. There has been a case of arson. Last week the school was set ablaze. At the root of the problem are allegations of corruption and mismanagement in the handling of millions of dollars.
The minister's avoidance response thus far has been to refuse to launch any investigation. The Canadian Alliance's first concern is the safety of the residents of Dakota Tipi.
Will the minister commit today to launching a public inquiry that will get to the bottom of the problem and perhaps prevent--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows very well, a number of months ago this first nation was brought under section 74 of the Indian Act, which includes the requirement to have an election on reserve. That election took place not too long ago.
This is the first time this community has had an election in over 20 years. It is a new structure for them. Because of that, there are some significant issues of healing that need to take place in the community. It is the objective of the government through mediation to work with the community to ensure that happens.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Sweeping this under the rug will not do, Mr. Speaker.
According to a band councillor the mediator just called off his investigation this morning, so mediation will not work and the minister knows that. We have to get to the bottom of the root of the problem. The problem is the mismanagement of millions of dollars. Without an investigation, the facts will not be revealed and the healing cannot begin.
Again, let me ask the minister this. We are calling for a public inquiry. The only person who does not seem to want a public inquiry is the minister. The band council does and we do. Will the minister launch a public inquiry?
(1500)
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is news to me. I have not heard from the council or any member of the community saying that they are in favour of a public inquiry. What they are in favour of is good governance, working toward building a community through the work of mediation and the work of healing.
There is a process to deal with wrongdoing. It is called the RCMP and the police forces. If there is corruption and/or allegations of that nature, I say to this member and any member of the House, bring that information to the proper authorities.
* * *
[Translation]
Immigration
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the restoration of the mechanism of temporarily returning asylum seekers to the United States has meant that a number of them have been jailed in that country while awaiting a meeting with an officer of Immigration Canada. The department is no longer demanding the assurance that these people will be able to make it to their appointments.
Given Canada's international commitments on the protection of refugees, will the minister commit to reinstating the directive requiring U.S. authorities to ensure that any asylum seekers in custody will indeed be able to attend their interview with Immigration Canada?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, if the hon. member had followed developments at all, she would have been aware that those who have an appointment with Immigration Canada, if detainees, have for the most part been released by the American authorities.
No formal agreement is required. The U.S. government, which is after all a signatory of the Geneva Convention, has its own way of doing things.
Our position, informally, is that those who have an agreement to come to Canada should be allowed to return. So I do not see—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Erie—Lincoln.
* * *
[English]
Firearms Registry
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House has been seized with the issue of gun control and public safety for some time now.
Following the report of the Auditor General and given the concerns expressed over cost, are there any measures that can be introduced to reduce these costs while maintaining the high level of public safety that Canadians currently receive?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that very important question. As everyone knows, at the beginning of the week, reports were tabled with regard to the situation in the gun control program. If we look at Mr. Hession's report, for example, there are 16 recommendations that will have to be taken into consideration to prepare our plan of action.
One thing that is very important as a first step is the implementation of the amendment of Bill C-10A. Bill C-10A would streamline the process and at the same time would reduce the cost of the program. I need the support of the House because we believe in public safety.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of a distinguished Canadian, Ms. Barb Tarbox, a lifetime smoker diagnosed with lung cancer, who is on a Canada-wide anti-smoking crusade aimed at getting teenagers to stop smoking.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader what the business is for the rest of this week and next week and if there is anything new coming along?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will start with the rest of this day and then go on with the future agenda.
If the opposition follows through with its offer, as promised during question period, to withdraw its motion today on the strength of the commitment made by the Prime Minister to, on the first day following military deployment should there be one which we all hope of course there would not be, call a votable opposition day that would free up the rest of the day.
Following that, this afternoon we would then deal with Bill C-19. Should there be any time left we would call Bill C-22, although I suspect that there would not be that much time, and perhaps Bill C-19 would take us close to the end.
(1505)
[Translation]
Tomorrow we shall begin the third reading stage of Bill C-6, the Specific Claims Resolution Act, followed by Bill C-2, an act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon.
Monday next, and Thursday as well, shall be allotted days.
Tuesday morning, we shall be resuming consideration of Bill C-13 on assisted reproduction. After oral question period, we shall begin consideration of Bill C-24 on political financing. Wednesday, we shall resume consideration of any unfinished business, with the possibility of continuing debate on Bill C-24.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, if the government House leader would like to put his recommendation for this in writing, we could probably negotiate the next little while. If the government is prepared to guarantee us a votable opposition day the day after the government makes a decision on going to war and if he would also guarantee us that if the House is not sitting the Speaker would be allowed to call it back so we could have that vote, we would then certainly be prepared to do that. If the government House leader wants to make that recommendation, we will certainly listen to it.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we will get into that in the debate, but even the motion that was proposed by the opposition does not do that. It was totally unprepared to get yes for an answer today. It did, and now it absolutely does not know what to do about it.
* * *
Points of Order
Questions on the Order Paper
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on January 27 by the hon. government House leader concerning written questions and the difficulties experienced by the government in responding to them within the 45 day deadline established pursuant to Standing Order 39(5)(a).
I would like to thank the hon. government House leader for having raised this matter as well as the hon. House leader for the official opposition and the hon. member for St. John's West for their interventions.
In presenting his case, the hon. government House leader stated that Questions Nos. 59 to 71 and 77, placed on the Notice Paper on November 20 and 21, 2002, requested a significant amount of information related to government grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded in certain constituencies over an eight year period. He went on to argue that the very nature of the questions made it virtually impossible for the government to respond within the 45 day deadline set for its responses.
[Translation]
The hon. government House leader presented several facts in support of that position. He noted that information of this nature is kept on file for a maximum period of six years. He also mentioned that government departments are not required to keep such records on a constituency basis. Furthermore, he pointed out that all the information collected for such a government response requires translation pursuant to S.O. 32(4), which stipulates that any document distributed or laid before the House must be in both official languages.
[English]
To remedy the dilemma he described, the hon. government House leader went on to suggest amending Standing Order 39(6) that currently allows certain questions to be transferred to Motions for the Production of Papers, so that it could provide another avenue for the government to respond to longer questions.
In concluding his remarks, the hon. government House leader also suggested that the Clerk, who is responsible for reviewing and accepting written questions for publication on the Notice Paper, should reject any question that was “unreasonable” or that was so poorly drafted that it requires multiple clarifications.
First, let me clear up one point. The hon. government House leader complained that the disputed questions sought information from the government about non-governmental organizations. However, as I read these questions, information is sought about “quasi non-governmental organizations funded by the government”. These quangos, as they are known in the United Kingdom, are in fact public bodies, defined as bodies having a role in the processes of government and, though not reporting to a minister, bodies for which ministers are ultimately responsible. Thus, it seems to me that the questions do, in fact, seek this information from the appropriate source.
[Translation]
Now let us return to the matter at hand. I should first say that since January 27, when this point of order was raised, the government has tabled responses to all the questions dealt with in the complaint.
Strictly speaking, the responses were tabled after the deadline provided for in Standing Order 39(5)(a) had passed.
(1510)
[English]
Since the Chair took this point of order under advisement on January 27, the designation of these questions and their reference to committee were held in abeyance, pending my ruling. Now, since the responses are in, the Chair will not designate these questions nor will these questions be referred to committee. However, I want to be very clear on this. This is a relatively new procedure and I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt in this instance. In the future though, the application of deadlines will be strictly applied and a non-response to a question will not mitigated by the fact that a point of order has been raised about the question and that the House must await a ruling.
[Translation]
In summary then, there is no longer an immediate problem with regard to this particular set of questions. However, the Chair is nevertheless prepared to share its conclusions on the point of order raised in the hope that it may prove helpful in future situations.
Having reviewed the issues raised by the hon. government House leader, I must confess a certain reluctance to intervene in the matter. Let me explain.
[English]
I would refer hon. members to the ruling made by Mr. Speaker Fraser on June 14, 1989, referred to by the hon. government House leader in his arguments. Specifically, let me cite what I believe is a succinct statement of the continuing problem regarding written questions, and I quote:
|
The dilemma is this: we must find a balance between the urgent requirements of Members who need information in order to function and the equal imperative of a rational and fair use of the limited resources available to provide answers. |
The ruling continues:
|
There is also a procedurally quite acceptable practice simply to respond by saying that the question cannot be answered because of the time and the human or financial resources involved. The Government may continue the practice of simply declining, with an explanation, to answer questions which it finds are too burdensome. It should be understood that there is no obligation on the Government to provide a perfect answer, only a fair one. |
Mr. Speaker Fraser continues with a very important caveat:
|
A Member in framing his or her question would accept part of the responsibility for the quality of the answer. |
[Translation]
In short, our procedure permits the government to respond to a question or questions by stating that the question cannot be answered because of the time and the human or financial resources involved.
[English]
Perhaps ironically, this is what the hon. government House leader did, even as he presented his point of order. In making his case, he stated that the government could not respond to Questions Nos. 59 to 71 and 77, because of certain ambiguities in the line of questioning, because of the time involved in compiling the information requested, and because of the human and financial resources involved.
On another front, the hon. government House leader posits that one remedy to the current situation he faces is that the Clerk's staff should exercise greater rigour in accepting written questions for the Notice Paper.
I cannot agree with this argument for, no matter what degree of rigour is applied to the process, it is not possible for House staff to form any accurate assessment of the resources necessary to prepare a reply. There will always be differences of opinion between the government and members of the opposition as to the way questions are formulated as well as to whether adequate information is provided in response.
[Translation]
Staff under the aegis of the Clerk review written questions submitted as to form and whether they conform with our guidelines, but they cannot be charged with assessing the merits of these questions, or whether the government will or will not be in a position to respond to them.
[English]
Marleau and Montpetit at page 441 makes the following point:
|
Acting on the Speaker's behalf, the Clerk has full authority to ensure the questions placed on the Notice Paper conform with the rules and practices of the House. Given that the purpose of a written question is to seek and receive a precise, detailed answer, it is incumbent on a Member submitting a question for the Notice Paper “to ensure that it is formulated carefully enough to elicit the precise information sought”. |
Similarly, as hon. members know, there is no provision in our rules for the Speaker to review the content of responses, nor would that be appropriate. In this regard I would simply state that any member not satisfied with the response provided by the government may raise supplemental questions either orally or in written form.
I should mention that the current situation may well be rooted in the frustration that members experience with regard to the constraints imposed on them with regard to written questions. I can remember a time when members were not limited in the number of questions they could place on the Order Paper whereas today Standing Order 39(4) limits members to four questions at any one time.
It is perhaps not entirely surprising that members have shown their usual ingenuity in coping with this constraint and have taken to crafting multipart questions of the kind that are the subject of the minister's complaint.
Where there might have been pointed questions each addressed to a particular department or agency, there is now one question which blankets all departments and agencies and throws in quangos for good measure. The minister is left with a rather thankless task of compiling all this information within the 45-day limit if he is to respect the deadline for responses.
(1515)
[Translation]
As I stated at the outset, I have concluded after reviewing this situation that the Chair cannot adjudicate on the merits of written questions asked of the government any more than it can judge the merits of the responses the government provides.
The Clerk and his officials are entrusted the task of ensuring that written questions are permissible as to form only; it falls to the government to determine whether it can offer a response, given the nature and scope of the question.
[English]
Since responses to the specific questions that gave rise to this point of order have now been tabled in the House, the Chair considers this particular case to be closed and trusts that this decision will help to clarify the situation in the future.
If hon. members remain concerned about the current rules relating to written questions, I would suggest that the matter be taken up by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs or by the Special Committee on Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons which is also currently tasked with reviewing our procedures.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on January 29, 2003 by the hon. member for St. Albert concerning the government's response to a question that he had placed on the Order Paper.
The hon. member for St. Albert argued that the answer provided by the government was, by its own admission, incomplete and that this constitutes a failure by the government to reply within the 45-day period provided for in Standing Order 39(5)(a). He therefore requested that the matter of this failure be referred to the appropriate standing committee as provided for in Standing Order 39(5)(b).
I have examined the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Albert with care but can find no grounds for proceeding as he suggests. Our procedure in such matters is clearly stated in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 443:
|
There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions. |
It is not within the powers of the Chair to judge the adequacy of an answer. The government, in providing the response which was tabled on January 27, 2003, has complied with the requirements of the standing order and I am therefore not in a position to instruct that the matter be referred to committee.
[Translation]
The hon. member has indicated that the government intends to present further material with respect to this question. This, too, is in keeping with our practice. On page 443 of Marleau and Montpetit, which I referred to just a moment ago, it is also stated that:
|
On occasion, the government has supplied supplementary replies to questions already answered. |
[English]
That is, apparently, what is intended in the present case.
I thank the hon. member for St. Albert for having drawn this matter to the attention of the House. If he wishes to seek further information from the government on this topic, or on any other matter, he is free to place further questions on the Order Paper.
The Chair has noticed a further intervention on a question to be raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
* * *
[Translation]
Privilege
Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs
[Privilege]
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the Chair for giving me this opportunity to address the question of privilege on the premature and unauthorized disclosure of the minority report of the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, which was tabled before Christmas by the hon. Bloc Quebecois member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
The hon. member claimed that, based on a number of newspaper articles, of which I did not receive a copy, it is clear that certain members of the committee gave interviews which, to a large extent, enabled reporters to learn the contents of the report before it was tabled in the House of Commons.
I asked to see these articles, and yesterday I was sent a three paragraph article published in the daily Le Droit. I do not know if you have other articles in your possession, but I assume that this is the only one that was tabled to support the motion of the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
The first two paragraphs do not quote anyone, but in the third paragraph my name is mentioned and I am said to have made the following statement:
|
The committee wanted to send a clear message to young people aged 12 to 18 that it is not legal to smoke marijuana. |
First, I want to say that I am extremely proud of the work done by the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs. We had our work cut out for us because, as you know, right in the middle of our public consultations, the House referred a bill to us on the legalization of marijuana. From the outset, we set this hot button issue aside to allow the Senate committee, which was finishing up its report on the matter, to publish its recommendations.
You will recall that the conclusions of the Senate report were quite controversial and left us with a hot potato in our hands.
As a result, our committee was well aware of the importance of properly defining the priorities in the area of addictions. It therefore decided to split the committee report into two parts to be made public.
We decided to publish the first 39 recommendations in an interim report on December 9 and to save the last two recommendations for the final report, made public on December 12.
On December 9, the interim report was greeted with a great deal of attention from the media. We proposed 39 recommendations on addictions and our approach to solving the problem in Canada.
Each and every one of us, including the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, was interviewed on television and had journalists ask every possible and relevant question, as their job requires them to do.
All week, they tried to fit the pieces of the puzzle together so they could break the news about marijuana before the report was tabled on December 12.
I gave interviews all week long, and I felt it was my duty to do so. I even took part in a television show with the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. Then, on December 12, our committee tabled its final report. The report contained the first report and also the two final recommendations that dealt with cannabis. Allow me to read the recommendations out loud.
Recommendation number 40 specifies:
|
The Committee recommends that the possession of cannabis continue to be illegal and that trafficking in any amount of cannabis remain a crime. |
Recommendation 41 stipulates:
|
—that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health establish a comprehensive strategy for decriminalizing the possession and cultivation of not more than thirty grams of cannabis for personal use. |
|
This strategy should include: |
|
Prevention and education programs outlining the risks of cannabis use and, in particular, the heightened risk it poses to young persons; and |
|
The development of more effective tools to facilitate the enforcement of existing Criminal Code prohibitions against driving while impaired by a drug. |
This is the full text of the recommendations set out in the committee's final report released on December 12. So, it would seem that the allegation made by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve does not hold. Let me explain why.
(1520)
Although I am in fact quoted in the article, I do believe, with all due respect, that what I said was nothing new. The headline of the article I received from your office simply said “30 grams of pot, no more!”
I have sent to your office two other newspaper articles where the quote about the 30 grams is attributed to another member of Parliament. A number of articles were published during that week. I would remind the House that any reporter who had read the interim report would have easily come to the conclusion that we were not about to legalize marijuana; it was right there in black and white.
That is the first part of my answer. I am referring to the article I sent to your office, which says:
|
As a member of the special committee, the member from the Canadian Alliance... supported the cultivation of not more than 30 grams— |
I would also point out that an anonymous source is quoted in this article. Would that be the hon. member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve? Or maybe the Alliance member right across from me? They just mention an anonymous source.
The article also mentioned that on December 9, the minister and member for Outremont indicated his intention to go ahead with a bill on decriminalization. Moreover, the Minister of Justice and member for Outremont has never stopped—since taking up his duties at the Department of Justice—saying that he is for the decriminalization of marijuana for recreational use. In the Speech from the Throne, there was a reference to this measure, which was felt to be imminent.
I also remember having heard the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve on a program on RDI, revealing—on the subject of marijuana—the basic position we would all take as a committee, which is, and this is my recollection of what he said, that it should remain illegal, but that recreational users of small quantities should no longer have criminal records.
My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve also published two articles in Quebec last summer setting out his position.
I agree with my colleague, the member for Langley—Abbotsford, that we are not prohibited from talking to journalists in circumstances such as I described. Nor does it in any way constitute divulging the contents of a report.
From the moment an interim report is tabled, the eyes of the media are on us. As a member of the committee, the Alliance member opposite knows that we did all we could to publicly reflect the recommendations contained in the special committee's interim report.
At no time was the text of recommendations 40 and 41, in the form they appeared in the report, made public, which demonstrates that there were no leaks of the report before it was published.
I therefore submit that the report was not leaked. My comments reflected my concerns about the use of marijuana among young people, aged 12 to 18. This is a concern, incidentally, that I expressed publicly on numerous occasions during the committee's public hearings.
If I am guilty, then the other members of the committee are equally so, because each and every one of them, unless I am mistaken, was quoted in newspapers, starting with the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
I am tabling the article from December 12, which I brought to your attention, where the member for Vancouver East is mentioned. In it, she is quoted as saying:
|
But another member of the committee, New Democrat, Libby Davies, believes the opposite, that the committee, made up of a majority of Liberals, does not go far enough, because possession of cannabis is still considered illegal— |