36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 55
CONTENTS
Monday, February 9, 1998
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1105
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1125
1130
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1135
1140
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1145
1150
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1155
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1200
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Report stage
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1205
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1210
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1215
1220
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1225
1230
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1235
1240
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1245
1250
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1255
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1300
1305
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1310
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1315
1320
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1325
1330
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1335
1340
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1345
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1350
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| 1998 OLYMPIC GAMES
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
1400
| ROSS REBAGLIATI
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| MAHATMA GANDHI
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| TOKAMAK PROJECT
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1405
| THE LATE MARK MACGUIGAN
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| HEART AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| CANADA TRAIN PROJECT
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
1410
| CENTRAL EXPERIMENTAL FARM
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| SIXTY MINUTES
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| IRAQ
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1425
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ICE STORM
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
1435
| INDIAN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| BILL C-28
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| INDIAN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. John Cummins |
1445
| Hon. David Anderson |
| MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| IRAQ
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1450
| BANKING
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1455
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| IRAQ
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| DAY CARE
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| TRANS-QUEBEC AND MARITIMES GAS PIPELINE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1500
| INVESTMENT
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Question Period
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| The Speaker: I refer the member to 409 |
| THE LATE CHARLES BEVERLEY KOESTER
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1510
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1515
| MIDDLE EAST
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1520
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| PETITIONS
|
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| Young Offenders Act
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Land Mines
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Equal Pay
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Public Nudity
|
| Mr. John Nunziata |
1525
| CRTC
|
| Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
| Manickavasagam Suresh
|
| Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
| Pledge of Allegiance
|
| Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
| Pornography
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Public Nudity
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1530
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Report stage
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1535
1540
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1545
1550
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1555
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1600
1605
1610
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1615
1620
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1625
1630
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1635
1640
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1645
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1650
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1655
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1700
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1705
1710
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
1715
| Mr. David Chatters |
1720
1725
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1730
| Mr. John Harvard |
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1750
| Motions in Group No. 4 deemed put, recorded divisions
demanded and deferred
|
1755
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Motion No. 20
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Motion No. 21
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 22
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Motion No. 23
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 24
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Motion No. 25
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motions Nos. 26 and 27
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Motions Nos. 28 and 29
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Motion No. 30
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 32
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Motion No. 33
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 34
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Motion No. 45
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 47
|
1800
1805
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1810
1815
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1820
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1825
1830
| MIDDLE EAST
|
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1835
1840
1845
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1850
1855
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1900
1905
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1910
1915
1920
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1925
1930
1935
1940
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1945
1950
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1955
2000
2005
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
2010
2015
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
2020
2025
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
2030
2035
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
2040
2045
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
2050
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
2055
2100
| Ms. Libby Davies |
2105
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
2110
2115
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
2120
2125
| Mr. David Price |
2130
| Mr. André Bachand |
2135
2140
| Motion
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
2145
2150
2155
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
2200
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
2205
2210
2215
2220
| Mr. George Proud |
2225
2230
| Mr. Paul Crête |
2235
2240
2245
2250
| Mr. John Richardson |
2255
2300
| Mr. John Maloney |
2305
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
2310
2315
| Mr. John Williams |
2320
2325
| Mr. Mark Assad |
2330
2335
| Mr. Janko Peric |
2340
| Mr. John Duncan |
2345
2350
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
2355
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
2400
2405
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
2410
2415
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
2420
2425
2430
2435
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
2440
2445
| Mr. Bob Speller |
2450
2455
| Mr. Keith Martin |
2500
2505
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
2510
| Mr. Derek Lee |
2515
2520
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
2525
2530
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
2535
2540
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 55
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 9, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately
conduct a review, with the participation of all stakeholders, to
develop a solution to grain transportation inefficiencies.
1105
He said: Mr. Speaker, what a better way to start a Monday
morning than to speak in this wonderful Chamber. I know that
you, Mr. Speaker, having rested over this past weekend, will no
doubt appreciate the comments that I as well as members of other
opposition parties will make.
Unfortunately the motion was deemed non-votable. I would have
preferred it votable, but when I appeared before committee there
were only so many motions that could be put forward as votable.
This was not chosen as one of them.
This motion is what I believe to be one of the major
agricultural issues that will be facing Canadian producers and
certainly Canadian trade in not only 1998 but years to follow.
I put forward Motion 225:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
immediately conduct a review, with the participation of all
stakeholders, to develop a solution to grain transportation
inefficiencies.
As part of my presentation to the committee, I quoted that the
delayed 1997 shipments to contracted international customers,
primarily in wheat, have resulted in demurrage charges of $65
million paid for primarily by producers. It has been estimated
that an additional $35 million was lost in potential sales
because of Canada's inability to deliver product. This does not
only reflect poorly on westerners but on Canada as a whole in the
international marketplace.
I would also like to inform the House that this motion does not
put forward any partisan interests. I am not suggesting any
changes in policy. I am suggesting that we, as parliamentarians,
listen to stakeholders involved, draft a report and table that
report to the House for consideration.
On December 18, 1997 the transport minister sent out a news
release announcing the appointment of the hon. Justice Estey to
conduct a review of Canada's grain handling transportation
system. The timing is very important. In October I put forward
this motion to committee. In December of that same year the
government did announce Mr. Estey as being the individual who
would take the review forward. There are still some issues and
some problems with that. I would like to consider that the
transportation committee and the agricultural committee have a
joint committee struck so we can, as parliamentarians, listen to
stakeholders and put forward their views to this House in a
separate report.
I welcome the appointment. It has been a long time coming. A
preliminary report will be available by May 31, 1998. The final
report of the review is to be completed by December 31, 1998.
A grain review advisory council comprising of representatives
from grain handling and transportation will be appointed by the
Minister of Transport to support Mr. Estey throughout the review
process. Hopefully the advisory council will not end in the same
fate that the western grain marketing panel suffered after most
of its key recommendations were shelved after they were given to
the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
I welcome the government's decision to finally begin the process
of the review. The unfortunate part of this is it is about two
years too late. With this review scheduled to end by December
1998, it will not be until 1999 when there can be something
actually done about the recommendations.
That being said, I would now like to elaborate on my motion
today which unfortunately was deemed not votable.
On July 25, 1997 the federal ministers of transport and
agriculture and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board convened a grain summit in Winnipeg. A key objective was
to gauge the interest among those who handled and transported
grain and the value of embarking on a comprehensive review
system. It was a productive exercise but it did not answer the
problems that thousands of farmers have out west with our current
system. However, there was a consensus that the review should be
conducted in 1999. With all due respect, Canadian farmers cannot
wait for two years.
We as parliamentarians have a role and a duty in committee to
begin immediately to listen to the concerns of all stakeholders
so that we may be able to have a better understanding as to how
we might tackle this problem.
1110
I also understand how we might tackle the problem. I also
believe that the most appropriate way of conducting an immediate
comprehensive review is to form a joint standing committee of
agriculture and agri-food and transport, pursuant to Standing
Order 108(1)(a). The committee would hear witnesses from farming
communities across western Canada, railways, the Canadian Grain
Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board and those who operate and
regulate the industry.
I would also like to dispel any thoughts that this is an issue
that affects only western Canada. It is an issue that has
widespread ramifications across Canada even though it has
directly affected those west of the Ontario border. It is
Canada's international reputation that is at stake as supplier of
some of the world's best grain and best product.
The review is necessary because of the new market realities for
Canadian grain. With the end of the Crow rate two years ago,
farmers have to be more competitive. Also, it should be noted
that the federal government's 13,000 hopper fleet is yet to be
sold, leaving farmers wondering the government's reasoning for
not doing anything with it. This is not helping the situation.
The review should assess the effectiveness of the process, the
adequacy of shipper protection, lack of railway competition and
alternatives and potential improvements and efficiencies, bearing
in mind the costs to all stakeholders.
Canada exports approximately $18 billion to $20 billion worth of
food products every year. About half of those exports are grains,
oilseeds and related products. Inefficiencies in the management
of the Canadian grain transportation system have caused serious
damage to the Canadian grain export industry and prairie economy.
Delayed 1997 shipments to contracted international consumers,
primarily in wheat, have resulted in demurrage costs of
approximately $65 million, paid for by producers. It has been
estimated that $35 million was lost in potential sales because of
Canada's inability to deliver. These are conservative estimates.
Prairie pools, for example, have suggested estimates of hundreds
of millions of dollars in lost sales of prairie products. This
does not only reflect poorly on westerners but Canada as a whole
and the international global marketplace.
Instead of dealing with the situation rationally, the Canadian
Wheat Board's knee-jerk reaction to the problem was to file a
complaint against CN rail before the CTA, which is only costing
taxpayers and producers more money, in a battle of egos instead
of sitting down rationally in committee and solving the problem.
I have asked the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board to drop the complaint so that we can get on with the
constructive review. He has declined to do so. Unlike what the
Canadian Wheat Board and CN have done, the committee review will
not be an exercise in finger pointing.
The CTA hearing has literally handcuffed the government's
ability to conduct this review on grain transportation.
Legislation governing the Canada Transportation Act allows 120
days to lapse between the time a complaint is filed and when the
public hearing must take place.
Unfortunately the CTA has delayed public hearings three times
since the complaint began and now is not scheduled to hear until
March 1998.
Once again I would like to inform this House that this motion
does not put forward any partisan interests. I am not suggesting
any changes in policy. I am only suggesting that we, as
parliamentarians, listen to stakeholders, draft a report and
table the report for consideration in the House of Commons.
Every provincial government in western Canada wants the review
conducted as soon as possible. Even Saskatchewan's transport
minister has said, referring to Ottawa's response to the issue,
it is a process that is taking much too long. There is not a
stakeholder involved who does not want an immediate inquiry into
the issue.
The committee process is vital to our role as parliamentarians.
Since the time of Confederation, the House of Commons has created
committees to study matters of national importance. It is just
one of many issues that are important to western Canadians and
Canada's reputation.
If anything, I hope this exercise is not a waste of time. At the
very least those on the government side can consider this an
information session so that the next time they might actually try
to listen to the concerns of farmers across western Canada and be
proactive instead of reactive.
1115
I have a number of concerns. As I said earlier, Mr. Justice
Estey has been identified as the individual to take this banner
across western Canada to try to find out exactly what the
inefficiencies are in the transportation system. And there are
many.
One of the concerns I have right now is the changes that are
going on constantly in the rail transportation system. One is
that of rail abandonment. Our concerns and certainly my position
would be, rather than rail abandonment because of the change in
the transportation system in the inland terminals that we have
more short lines. The short lines should be available to those
entrepreneurs who wish to develop the process within their own
marketplaces. I believe that is one very major issue that has to
be studied not only by the committee but certainly by Mr. Justice
Estey and his individual groups.
Another very serious concern I have, and I talked about it
briefly, is that of political will. We recognize there is a very
major problem with the system of grain transportation now in
western Canada. There is no finger pointing. A number of
stakeholders and organizations are equally at fault by operating
a system that is unimpeded by progress in the last number of
years. They are steeped in tradition only but have not developed
the same way that farming has developed in western Canada.
It is going to take political will to make the system change.
Right now the Canadian Wheat Board controls the allocation of
cars. The question should be asked, should in fact they be
controlling that particular aspect of transportation, or should
it be controlled either by the producers or for that matter by
the railroads themselves.
I find it very strange that a producer when he sells his product
is responsible for that product until it gets on a ship. However
he has no control of that product. This is the political will
that is required to make the necessary changes in order to make
the system work better. I believe that a joint committee of
agriculture and agri-food and transportation would at least allow
the nurturing of that political will, non-partisan, to do what is
best for the producer and certainly what is best for western
Canadian trade abroad.
I also have a concern about the delay in Justice Estey's report.
We have some serious concerns right now about the fact that we
are being affected in the international market because of just in
time delivery. If Justice Estey wishes to bring his report
forward in two years, we may have lost a wonderful window of
opportunity to have additional sales in the world market where we
could not access them because of the lack of ability to deliver
on time.
There is another issue too with respect to transportation which
has not been dealt with but which the committee should be
studying. That is the effect on municipal roads that rail
transportation is going to have in the not too distant future. We
have seen a number of the private sector corporations developing
huge inland terminals where producers are required to ship their
product by rubber tire many kilometres further now than what they
did previously with other rail lines.
The problem with that is that road infrastructure is being
impacted by the grain trucks and municipalities are responsible
for the repair, the construction and the maintenance of those
roads. I believe it is important that this government and the
committee design and help to put in place a policy which will
assist that road infrastructure.
There is one other issue that I have a real serious concern
with. It is the CTA hearing itself. How can Justice Estey expect
to have open, honest, transparent dialogue when the Canadian
Wheat Board is taking the same people to a quasi-judicial court
and asking for millions of millions of dollars? It cannot be
expected to be honest and open unless we get rid of the CTA
hearing.
That too should be debated and discussed openly at the committee
level so that parliamentarians can make an honest decision and
judgment and bring it back to the House.
1120
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I hope your Monday morning has gone
well. I hope the rest of the week goes equally as well for you
and the rest of the House.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member's views are
shared by all hon. members.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had truly expected that a
deliriously happy member for Brandon—Souris would stand in his
place today to withdraw Motion No. 225 because for all intents
and purposes it has been nullified by the transport minister's
wise decision to undertake a comprehensive review of the grain
handling and transportation system. Unfortunately such is not
the case. The hon. member wants to play politics while this
government is committed to finding solutions with the
co-operation of all the stakeholders concerned.
I would like to go back a bit. The Canada Transportation Act
enacted on July 1, 1996 is intended to modernize and streamline
rail regulation, promote the formation of short line railways and
ensure that shippers continue to have access to competitive
transportation services. The act provides for a review of the
provisions of the act during 1999 as they relate to grain
transportation. However, given the difficulties incurred by the
system, which the hon. member mentioned, during the 1996-97 crop
year and the calls from stakeholders, the Minister of Transport
decided to accelerate this review.
On December 18, 1997 the Minister of Transport appointed Mr.
Justice Willard Estey to conduct this review. Justice Estey is
one of Canada's leading jurists and he has been given broad terms
of reference which allow him to conduct a comprehensive review of
the system. Justice Estey's appointment has been exceedingly
well received by the entire stakeholder community, including
provincial ministers of agriculture and transportation.
For instance, Manitoba's minister of highways and transportation
said “The western provinces are pleased that the federal
government has appointed the honourable Mr. Justice Willard Z.
Estey—. Justice Estey's pre-eminent background makes him a
highly qualified individual to examine potential changes in the
grain handling and transportation system”.
Leroy Larsen of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool said “This is
exactly the broad mandate we were looking for—. Let us get all
the issues on the table”.
Ted Allen, the president of the United Grain Growers, said “You
have to see it as a positive”.
Justice Estey will be conducting the review in two phases.
During the first phase he will consult stakeholders in order to
identify the key issues and problems. Work in this phase of the
review is already under way. Justice Estey will report to the
minister on his phase one findings by May 31, 1998.
I want to stress to the hon. member that this is an important
part of the review. The second phase will commence after the
resolution of the complaint currently before the Canadian
Transportation Agency. Phase two will involve the development of
a package of recommendations on issues and problems identified
during phase one. It is expected that Justice Estey will submit
his report on phase two findings to the minister by the end of
this year.
Justice Estey has eagerly begun to perform his duties. He has
already taken two trips to western Canada where he has met with
over 50 stakeholders and he has met with provincial transport
ministers from the western provinces. Several more trips to the
western provinces by Justice Estey and the review secretariat are
planned. This will ensure that the consultation process for the
review will be broad and that all interested stakeholders will
have the opportunity to make their views known to the review.
I agree with the hon. member that consultation is crucial to the
success of this process. If stakeholders are not consulted, then
the resulting product simply will not be good enough to serve the
needs of the industry.
Producers are the experts, shippers are the experts, railways
are the experts, grain companies are the experts and so on
throughout the entire system. These are the people who matter in
this review and these are the people Justice Estey is eager to
hear from. Without their input the review would be a sterile
exercise because it would not be able to serve the needs of all
elements of industry.
Taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by modern
technology, the Estey grain review will have a dedicated Internet
web site which will allow all individuals to make representations
directly to Justice Estey for his consideration.
This will allow all, and I stress the word all, interested
parties to have their say on this important topic and it will
ensure that everyone is heard.
1125
Even before the announcement of this review, the Minister of
Transport had taken steps to ensure that the difficulties
incurred during the 1996-97 crop year were not repeated. In July
the Minister of Transport along with the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board met with industry representatives to discuss plans for the
upcoming crop year.
The Minister of Transport challenged the industry to take steps
to ensure that grain movement would proceed without incident. As
a result of that meeting an industry led contingency plan was
developed. This plan would allow the industry to respond to
emerging logistic problems before they became serious enough to
materially affect grain flows.
By identifying and dealing with the issues before they get out
of hand, the contingency provisions would ensure that the system
would not repeat its 1996-97 difficulties.
The system has responded well to the challenge by the minister.
We are currently about halfway through the crop year and already
the system has exported more than two million tonnes of grain
than it did at this point last year. That is good news for
everyone and it ensures that Canada can maintain its leading role
in world grain markets.
In addition to the contingency plan however, the more important
achievement of the minister was that he help initiate a dialogue
within the industry so that everyone's efforts were focused on
moving grain this year instead of pointing fingers of blame for
last year.
Finding solutions to the difficulties in Canada's grain handling
and transportation system will require the co-operation of all
parties. This review is only the start of that process. We need
to focus on solutions to improve the efficiency of the entire
system from the time the grain leaves the farm gate to the time
the vessels leave the port loaded with Canadian grain for its
export destination.
The Minister of Transport took great care in the selection of
Justice Willard Estey. Many candidates were considered for this
position but few could match Justice Estey's impressive
credentials. As a former supreme court justice, Justice Estey is
skilled in absorbing and processing vast amounts of technical
material and then making sense out of it all in a rational
manner.
As a former judge, Justice Estey is also skilled in the
important quality of giving equal consideration to all the
material that is relevant to a question before passing judgment.
Justice Estey is new to the grain industry but his actions to
date indicate that he has thrown his energies into this process
with great enthusiasm. Stakeholders have been impressed with his
vigour and candour and they are pleased that the minister has
made such a fine choice for such an important matter.
There can be no doubt that this is a matter that is of the
utmost importance to the Canadian economy. The Minister of
Transport is confident that the work that will result from
Justice Estey's review will help us achieve the most cost
effective, customer friendly grain handling and transportation
system possible. Canadian producers deserve no less and they will
get no less from this review.
I appreciate that the hon. member brought forward his particular
motion. At the time he brought it forward, yes, he had concerns
and believed that we as an all-party committee could sit down and
discuss these issues. However, we now have a review process that
is independent of the political process.
This is the hon. member's first term here so I can understand
where he might be coming from, that we could do a heck of a job
in committee, bring two committees together and discuss the issue
at committee stage. However, the member will discover as he
lives on through politics and attends many of these committee
meetings over the next short term of his political career, that
the walls start to go up, the divisions start to happen and
sometimes not everyone can be heard because of limitations of
time, limitations to what the committee can do and limitations on
how much money the committee can use to travel.
As a result, by putting it into independent hands and out of the
political process, we are confident that Justice Estey will be
able to take into consideration all the views from all the
stakeholders and all the individuals through the web site in
order to come up with a solution that is satisfactory to everyone
in this system.
1130
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to rise in debate on this private
member's motion. Indeed I wish it were votable as well.
I would like to assure the hon. member who just spoke that I am
not here to criticize the appointment of Mr. Justice Willard
Estey. The point I want to make is that this has come far too
late.
We have had a disease hit western Canada which obviously this
government is not aware of. It is a disease called
terminalization. This terminalization has us in a situation that
is changing the western grain transportation movement so quickly
that the appointment of the hon. Mr. Justice Estey may be
redundant.
In the motion by the hon. member for Souris—Brandon there is
one word that is key in the debate, that in the opinion of this
House the government should immediately conduct a review with the
participation of all stakeholders.
Up to this time, I want to assure this House, that the most
important stakeholders, the most numerous stakeholders, the
stakeholders whose livelihoods depend on it have not been
consulted by the railways. They have not been consulted by this
government and they have not been consulted by the grain
companies.
The farmers in western Canada today feel they have been betrayed
wholesale. In May, during the campaign, we had the three members
of this government move a public inquiry as to what was
happening.
At that time I said that the inquiry would never take place. It
did not. It moved on until July. A joint statement by three
members, as the member alluded to, said that things were going to
go well.
I want people in this House to think for one moment. I have a
constituency right now where there is an oil boom. Still the
majority of people are dependent on agriculture for a living.
In light of what my colleague from Souris—Brandon had to say,
if something is not done very drastically within the next two
years, and I will be coming to this a little later, I will have
farmers attempting to get the grain to market not 100 kilometres
but 100 miles.
Those people are out of business. Mr. Justice Estey will find
that it has gone too far, too fast and we have people who can no
longer live in the land. I have examined several of my
constituents' grain bills. Now almost half the total cost of
grain is in transportation alone. It is a dreadful thing. Nowhere
else in Canada does agriculture face this type of transportation
cost.
I want to inform the minister and members of this House what has
happened. I have a formula from a paper in western Canada:
deregulation minus competition equals a monopoly. Let me take a
moment to explain how that monopoly has taken place.
In Saskatchewan all the CN lines were traded to CP and CN went
to northern Saskatchewan. The CP branch lines to northern
Saskatchewan came to southern Saskatchewan and created a mammoth
monopoly. That is what is existing at the present time.
I do not really think the transport minister, the agriculture
minister and the sole government member in charge of the wheat
board are even aware this monopoly has been created on the
prairies. It is a zero plus for any western farmer today. That
is what has happened.
I want to talk a little about the situation that the chief
justice finds himself in.
1135
I know the railways are not happy with me but the producers are,
and they are the ones who count. For the last five years they
have been meeting behind closed doors and they themselves are
establishing a monopoly. We have CN to the north, no
competition, and CP to the south, no competition. The grain
companies have decided where they are going to put the various
terminals. Even the producer will not have an option as to who
buys the grain.
Talk about living under a regime. They do not have an option to
where they haul their grain and they do not have an option under
the Canadian Wheat Board as to how the grain is to be sold. They
have developed a very serious thing in the prairies.
I would like to provide information which I think is very
important. The Reform Party proposes that a moratorium be
legislated on the abandonment branch lines west of the city of
Winnipeg. What is the hurry? The branch lines are there. They
are in top shape. The elevator houses are there. Let us slow
down for a moment until we get some sense of the disease which I
have referred to as terminalization.
Under section 43 of the Canada Transportation Act, they should
be protected from dismantlement for not less than three years to
allow time to investigate and develop the short line proposals.
We have moved too far, too fast and if we continue to move at the
current rate we can forget about any short line proposals. It is
reaching the point where it is case closed. We will have to live
with the results of not the shareholders but the railways and the
grain companies. The producer is going to suffer the consequence
of the government's sitting by and allowing this monopoly to
develop.
Both CN and CP are issuing notices of discontinuance of rail
lines on a piecemeal basis. If this happens I will have no
railways in the western half of my constituency operational by
the year 2000. Not one. Everything is going to be wiped out. In
doing so, most of the subdivisions are available for sale and
would not be viable for stand alone short lines because of the
railway abandonments. There is no place for them to haul.
There is a cartoon in the paper showing a main line going but
all the branch lines coming into the main line being cut. Short
lines are out. The monopoly of the railways and the monopoly of
the grain companies is already taken place. Most of the branch
lines are at risk in Saskatchewan.
The hon. member from Souris Brandon alluded to this, but I want
to say that no place is it more evident than in Saskatchewan that
the public road system is in absolute shambles. There is tactic
alliance between the railways and the grain companies to
eliminate the branch lines as quickly as possible and concentrate
grain facilities in high capacity main line terminals. That in
itself would not be bad if the farmers, the real stakeholders,
had a voice in this.
The absence of railway competition in western Canada negates the
argument that controlling the abandonment process will interfere
with the free market. What a joke. There is no free market.
Surely the people of Canada, particularly of eastern Canada,
recognize that for the farmers in western Canada there is no free
market.
Large scale farming in western Canada would not have developed
without the historical past, right or wrong, of money being
injected into the railways.
With the time I have left I want to point out something this
government should be aware of. The amount of energy that will be
used to get the grain to a terminal has already been measured as
between three to eight times the amount of emissions going
through the air as it would by rail traffic.
I believe every word of all those reports. It has to be more
polluting to haul grain to terminals via roads that do not exist.
1140
At least half the villages in my constituency have totally
disappeared in the last 30 years. In some places there is not
even the old store or an elevator or even a post office or even
postal boxes to indicate where the towns had been. The remaining
small towns have stabilized and are providing essential services
in the west. But many of these communities will disappear as we
continue the wholesale abandonment and betrayal of the western
Canadian farmer.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today on behalf of the NDP caucus to speak to the
motion concerning this crisis put forward by the member for
Brandon—Souris. There is a crisis in western grain
transportation. We must try to find workable solutions.
I heard the member who put forward the motion lament that it was
non-votable, but it certainly has been actionable. The
government has seen fit to take some action. As previous
speakers have noted, the government has appointed retired Justice
Estey to look into the grain transportation crisis. We welcome
Mr. Estey's appointment in this effort. He is a distinguished
Canadian citizen and was a distinguished jurist at the supreme
court level. A native of Saskatchewan, he knows in his bones
just how important grain transportation is to our vast and land
locked province.
In a recent interview in the Western Producer, Justice
Estey said: “You know I'm a westerner from 100 years back and I
don't remember four provinces ever agreeing on what day it is,
but they did today”. The member for Souris—Moose Mountain
noted that the four provinces are in agreement on the need for
this urgent transportation review.
The federal government in 1975 appointed a royal commission to
investigate grain and rail in western Canada. The commission was
led by a colleague of Mr. Estey, the late hon. Justice Emmett
Hall. At that time Justice Hall was being encouraged by the
railways to move toward deregulation. He was wise enough not to
accept their recommendations. He insisted there had to be a
degree of regulation in the grain transportation system.
We have an historic problem which has been with us since the
first stages of agricultural settlement in western Canada.
Farmers grow grain and they have to move it to market. To do
that effectively and efficiently in the land locked west they must
rely on the railroads, as previous speakers have noted.
The railroads are effectively a monopoly or at least a duopoly
made up of CN and CP when it comes to moving grain hundreds and
thousands of kilometres from the farm gate to the port. From Sir
John A. Macdonald's day until today, the railways have always had
farmers and rural communities at their mercy. Much of western
Canadian history revolves around attempts by farmers to force
governments to create institutions and/or regulations to protect
them from this monopolistic environment.
Mr. Hall did not buy the railway's cry for deregulation two
decades ago. He knew the only protection for farmers in this
monopolistic situation was the continuation of some form of
regulation. But the governments of Pierre Elliot Trudeau and
Brian Mulroney and the current government of today did buy those
arguments from the railroads. First the Crow rate was abandoned
and replaced by the Crow benefit. Then the Crow benefit was
abandoned in the last Parliament and railways have now been given
the green light to abandon rail lines at will.
We are not talking about hypothetical situations. I refer to
the line that includes Eston and Elrose. The previous speaker
moved around Saskatchewan when he ran for various legislatures.
He will know about the Elrose area, Dinsmore, Beechy and Estonia.
1145
This is an area where the farmers had to get together to move
the grain in December because CN had indicated that it had no
intention of coming in. I would like to quote from the minister
of highways who is responsible for transportation in
Saskatchewan. The hon. Judy Bradley said:
CN's refusal to negotiate in good faith with the West Central
Road and Rail Committee is simply unacceptable. Communities will
lose their railway system, not because rail service is not
economically viable in the region, but because it does not
support the bottom line of CN and the grain companies. This is
not an answer Saskatchewan will accept.
While I am on this point about West Central, I congratulate my
colleague from Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar who notes that the
West Central R and R has put together an excellent package, one
that will ensure the future of the rail line and one which will
work for farmers. There is no sound reason for CN to reject it.
The prairie provinces have suffered dramatically as a result of
changes to federal regulations governing rail transportation. It
is not enough that they are abandoning rail lines but they are
dismantling the tracks at the same time. It is a real scorched
earth policy.
I listened carefully to the exchange last week between the
member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands and the Minister of
Transport. The member was urging the government to place a
moratorium on rail line abandonment until the Estey report was
concluded. The minister gave a lot of platitudes and indicated
he would look into it but he was certain that the railway
companies were not abusing the situation.
There is absolutely no reason at this point that the government
cannot simply issue an edict that says there will not be a
centimetre of rail track that is lifted during this report by
Estey. That is the real problem. If we abandon the track, we
can always put rail cars on at a later date, but if we tear up
the track, the cost is prohibitive and it means the line is gone
forever.
We see examples of that in parts of Saskatchewan and in other
provinces. The railway companies are tearing up a significant
portion of track to make sure that short line railways will not
be viable for Omnitrax or some of the other competitors that are
thinking of coming in to fill the void created by CN and CP to
move grain to Hudson Bay and elsewhere to the main lines. That
is a very significant concern. It is something the government
could and should move on immediately.
In addition, I mentioned the abandonment of the Crow rate and
the Crow benefit. We have seen in the last few years that the
railways have doubled and tripled freight rates on grain. At the
same time they have ripped up tracks and shifted the costs of
long hauls onto the backs of farmers.
This is not the only cost to individual farmers. The roads in
western Canada and the grid roads in Saskatchewan—and we have
some of the largest road networks in the country on a per capita
basis—were not built for these huge trucks. The roads are
taking a terrible pounding as the member for Souris—Moose
Mountain noted a few minutes ago. They are taking a pounding
because the grain has to be carried further and further to the
giant inland terminals.
Mr. Estey, we believe, is off to a good start having met quickly
with governments of the four western provinces and with various
stakeholders. I agree with Mr. Estey when he says that he can
and must proceed with his review even while the wheat board
complaint against the railway continues concurrently. On this
point I do not accept the member for Brandon—Souris' point that
the wheat board's complaint against the railway should be
dropped. Clearly the two situations can go independently of one
another.
1150
In conclusion, we are demanding again that the federal
government stop all rail line dismantling until Mr. Justice
Estey's review is complete. Whatever results from the review of
the grain transportation system, it must ensure that a fair share
of the benefits of an improved system find their way back to the
farmers and thus to their communities.
Also, we must ask ourselves what government policies and
regulations may be needed in a situation where competitive
services and rates are not historic in a continuing monopoly by
the railroads.
Finally, there are other various ideas which are of great
interest to us, including joint running rights and the
organization of short line railroads. Railways have thwarted
efforts by Saskatchewan producers often in frustration for the
establishment of short line railways.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to address this issue. Some of my colleagues have
asked what a member from the great metropolis of Mississauga
might be concerned about with regard to this issue. Obviously
transportation, whether it be grain transportation or the rail
system, is of significance to all Canadians right across the
country.
When I was in the provincial legislature in Ontario I sponsored
a private member's bill to try to assist short line rail lines
from disappearing and to assist the takeover and privatization by
providing an exemption to short line rail operators from
successor rights. This very serious problem saw private business
trying to take over certain short line rail lines having to
assume as many as 17 different union contracts that simply made
it uneconomic and inoperable. This is a concern right across the
country with regard to our railway system.
Obviously, grain production and the marketing of such is a key
sector of the prairie economy. It is also important in many
other communities across Canada.
Since the majority of grains and processed grain products are
exported off the prairies, the grain transportation and handling
system must be as efficient and reliable as possible in order to
minimize costs to farmers and respond to their customers' needs.
The system is very complex and involves a number of different
stakeholders.
I would like to give a few statistics relating to the grain
transportation and handling sector to help put things in
perspective.
There are currently about 120,000 Canadian Wheat Board permit
holders in western Canada. The average crop production is about
45 million tonnes, nearly 60% of which is exported. Farmers truck
their grain an average of 15 miles. There are about 1,100
primary elevators located at about 900 shipping points in the
country. There are over 13,000 miles of rail lines in western
Canada alone, of which some 5,000 miles are grain dependent
branch lines.
Prairie grain is exported through terminal elevators—and to
prove my point about it being a national issue—located at
Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Thunder Bay and Churchill. As well
there are transfer elevators at a number of locations on the St.
Lawrence River.
Grain transportation reform is one of several key transportation
initiatives that have been implemented in recent years. There
are four main reasons for reforming grain transportation
policies.
There was a requirement to comply with the new world trade rules
which impose significant dollar and volume restrictions on
trade-distorting subsidies such as payments under the Western
Grain Transportation Act.
Reform was necessary to create a less rigid and more responsive
operating environment and encourage a faster, lower cost and more
efficient system for the benefit of farmers, shippers and
railways. Hardly an abandonment, I might add, of the prairie
farmers.
1155
There was also a need to eliminate the freight rate
discrimination against value added production and processing,
diversification and economic growth.
Finally, the government wanted to help reduce government
spending in the battle against the deficit while re-focusing
remaining expenditures on key growth oriented priorities.
There were five components to western grain transportation
reform.
First, the WGTA subsidy payments to the railways were terminated
effective August 1, 1995. Second, the overall legislative and
regulatory framework was revised to encourage a more efficient
system. Third, a one time ex gratia payment of $1.6 billion was
made to prairie farmland owners in recognition of the impact on
land values that may have resulted from the elimination of the
subsidy. Fourth, a $300 million adjustment fund was established
to provide assistance for improved agricultural infrastructure
for farmers affected by seaway pooling and for the alfalfa
dehydration industry. Fifth, new and additional export credit
guarantees of up to $1 billion were provided for sales of grain
and other agri-food exports to non-government buyers.
The role of the government in car allocation as well has been
terminated and turned over to an industry body called the Car
Allocation Policy Group. The government encouraged industry to
include a producer representative on this group thereby
introducing a private sector aspect to this policy.
Although the WGTA was repealed, the government continued to
regulate maximum freight rates for former WGTA traffic.
In addition to western grain transportation reform, the
government also commercialized CN and encouraged rail renewal
through a new Canada Transportation Act. The CTA reduced or
eliminated unnecessary regulations which impeded the railways'
ability to compete. It created a more commercial environment for
railways and shippers, including short line haulers.
The government implemented these extensive changes because it
believed they were in the best interests of farmers, shippers and
the railways.
One of the commitments when the WGTA reform was implemented was
to conduct a statutory review in 1999 which will indeed assess
the impact of the CTA provisions on the efficiency of the grain
transportation and handling system and the sharing of efficiency
gains.
The review will also examine whether or not the maximum rate
provisions should be repealed.
There were widespread calls for the government to conduct an
early grain review stemming in large part from the problems in
moving grain which were experienced at this time last year. Some
stakeholders feel that the difficulties in moving grain were
symptoms of systemic problems which were not addressed by
previous efforts at reform.
This government agreed that it was necessary to undertake an
early grain review. The Minister of Transport in December, as we
have heard, appointed the honourable Mr. Justice Willard Estey to
lead this review.
Justice Estey has commenced his consultations with producer
groups, grain companies, railways, the provinces and other
interested and affected parties. He has received a strong and
positive response and is looking forward to the ongoing
co-operation of producer, industry and government representatives
in identifying problems and working collectively toward
constructive solutions.
In closing, I believe that the motion introduced by the member
is indeed being responded to now. This government has done
everything it can to support western grain producers and the
transportation system. We are indeed implementing effective
reforms.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am really concerned about the reluctance of this
government to declare a moratorium on dismantlements pending the
outcome of Mr. Estey's study. I wonder if there may not be a
message for us here that the study itself is being set up as a
bit of a smokescreen to distract us all from what is going on
while the dismantlements are taking place.
1200
I do not believe that we should forget the famous blue ribbon
panel which was set up by the then minister of agriculture to
study grain marketing and the wheat board. When the results of
that hand picked panel's work came back to the minister he
promptly said “I don't agree with this stuff. Let us forget it.
We will go our own way”.
What assurance do we have from this government that that is not
the game plan for the work of the Estey commission as well?
The Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the Order Paper.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CANADIAN WHEAT
BOARD—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: Before I go to orders of the day, I see
the member for Prince George—Peace River is with us and I would
like to give my ruling.
[Translation]
I am now prepared to address the matter raised on Tuesday
February 3, 1998 by the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River
concerning anticipation of the decision of the House on the report
stage motions on Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board
Act.
[English]
I want to thank all hon. members who spoke to this issue. I
also thank the hon. Minister of Natural Resources and the
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board for returning
to the House on Thursday, February 5 and presenting his view of
the events.
The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River claimed that the
minister and his officials had shown contempt for the House by
holding a meeting to discuss the implementation of Bill C-4, thus
anticipating a decision in the House as well as showing contempt
for earlier rulings of the Chair on cases of anticipation.
[Translation]
For his part, the Minister denied anticipating the disposition
of Bill C-4 and claimed that when discussing the bill, he had tried
to make it clear that the proposed legislation was still before the
House and that no final decision had been taken.
[English]
Having heard both sides, I find myself confronted with the
disagreement over facts. On the basis of the arguments presented
and in light of the minister's response, I must therefore rule
that while there may exist a matter for debate, it does not
constitute a prima facie breach of privilege.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
The House resumed from November 20, 1997, consideration of Bill
C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 4 to 19.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the debate on the
Group No. 4 amendments to Bill C-4 adjourned on November 20 of
last year there was an agreement with all parties that an order
of the House deemed all amendments would be found in order, to
have been read by the Chair, to have been duly moved and seconded
and to further provide that when there is no further debate the
amendments will be deemed to have been put and a recorded
division requested. At that time there was unanimous consent
from the House given and that was the process we were operating
under in November.
I just wanted to be sure that was the situation as we move
forward and complete debate on the amendments in Group Nos. 4, 5,
6 and 7.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is quite correct.
The House order that was adopted on that occasion applied to this
bill for the report stage and will apply to the proceedings that
continue on the report stage today. That is the Chair's
understanding and the Chair intends to operate on that basis.
Pursuant to an agreement made on Wednesday, November 19, 1997,
all questions on motions in Group No. 4 are deemed put if no
one else is rising to debate on Group No. 4.
1205
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before I speak to this bill I would like to rise on a
point of information, privilege or whatever it is. Maybe you can
guide me along on what I should be doing.
As members know, I have had the wheat board send me some nice
friendly letters. I have always appreciated them. I am in a
situation where the issue is that we have a whole bunch of area
farmers in my constituency losing a whole pile of money on issues
of freight and elevation and stuff being cleaned off their
cheques.
On the class action suit these farmers said that Parliament
should deal with it. Parliament has not dealt with it but now we
find out that in a court case on November 11, 12 and 13 in
Manitoba, the wheat board, under oath, admitted it should not
have deducted freight, elevation or cleaning charges on these
farmers.
This amounts to about $358,000 that has been deducted. As
members know, this bill transfers the liability from the
government to the pooling system. What do I do to get this issue
resolved properly?
The courts have now found out that these farmers have had these
fees deducted illegally but still nobody will deal with it. How
do I handle that?
Also, during that court case, this farmer is charged with
forfeitures for transporting grain illegally without an export
permit to the U.S.
On February 2, 1996 one of the farmers in Saskatchewan filed an
action against the minister of revenue and customs on the same
issue. The government failed to file a defence.
It says very clearly in this document it is required to file
in the registry of the Federal Court of Canada in the city of
Ottawa at the local office or court its defence against this.
It was never filed. It admitted it had no case.
The government is still prosecuting farmers under this same
rule. How can we pass a bill in the House when the liability is
transferred from the government to the farmer pool itself?
I do not know how to debate this bill, whether I should first of
all make a citizen's arrest of the Speaker or the government or
whether I should lay criminal charges. How do we deal with a
bill that is actually in contempt of court? The government has
not filed a defence but is still prosecuting farmers.
I would like Mr. Speaker's learned wisdom on how to deal with this.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not to be involved in a
legal dispute. I am sure the hon. member and his constituents
are getting sound legal advice from a very capable source and
will maintain obtaining that legal advice.
I assure him that Parliament will not be acting in contempt of
court in dealing with legislation. If he would like to debate
the merits of the bill, I am sure I would happy to give him the
floor for that purpose.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your
advice. I am just wondering whether this is recorded and will be
taken into account when the bill is dealt with later.
It does deal with the liability of the bill and transfers it from
government to farmer pools. You are really being liable yourself
with illegal procedures whether civil or criminal.
That is what I wanted to bring forward in this House to make
sure you were aware of it. I knew you could give me some learned
experience on that. With that I will turn to my debate on Bill
C-4 when this is recorded and you will take note of it.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to seek
unanimous consent for the two following motions. The first one
is as follows:
That, until otherwise ordered, on allotted days pursuant to
Standing Order 81, members shall speak in the manner provided for
in the special order respecting allotted days made on September
26, 1997.
1210
This is a motion required for the sequence of speakers on the
opposition day tomorrow.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been a consultation
and I wish to propose the next motion to the House for unanimous
consent to be passed without debate:
That on Monday, February 9, 1998 at the ordinary time of
adjournment, proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall not
be taken up, but at that time a motion to adjourn shall be deemed
to have been proposed and the said motion shall be debated under
the following conditions:
(1) Members wishing to speak shall address the question of the
invitation to Canada by the United States of America to
participate in possible military action in the Middle East;
(2) No member shall speak for more than 20 minutes with no period
being allotted for questions and comments, and two members may
share one 20 minute period;
(3) No dilatory motions or quorum calls shall be received;
(4) When no member rises to speak, the motion shall be deemed to
have been adopted.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps a bit of further clarification. The hon. member
said consultation had been undertaken. Are we to believe that
there is all party agreement on this process and the way in which
the debate will be conducted this evening?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that we
have that, and that is why I am seeking it, but members can react
individually. A meeting of House leaders was held approximately
an hour ago.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader
have the unanimous consent of the House to put the motion to the
House at this time?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no agreement. Resuming
debate, the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, an act to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and
of Motions Nos. 4 to 19.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to speak to Group No. 4 amendments to Bill C-4 dealing
with the election of directors, the number of directors and the
duty of the directors.
Why do farmers not trust the partially elected board? I think
that is the number one question in western Canada. I would say it
is mainly due to one simple reason, that the minister and this
government have not listened to western Canadian farmers. They
have prepared a bill they feel should be put on the backs of
western farmers so they can control the destiny of western
Canadians farmers for another half century probably, and that is
something farmers violently object to.
The minister does not listen. Why? That is one question I have
not been able to answer. We know this minister spent at least a
year and a half establishing the western grain marketing panel
which was supposed to do a job of listening and then give the
minister recommendations on how to deal with this bill.
As I have watched this thing unfold in the House and in the
public, none of those recommendations was really ever accepted or
implemented into Bill C-4, and that has what has caused farmers
to react bitterly to this bill.
We wonder why the minister is not listening. It does not make
sense. I was listening to his presentation the other day to
counteract the point of privilege the member for Prince
George—Peace River put forward.
The straightforward meeting with farm leaders which I held on
January 21, which is Reform's sole source of complaint in the
alleged question of privilege, was part of that open, inclusive
and transparent effort to gain the benefit of producer input.
1215
According to reports on that meeting, the minister told these
producer groups what was in the bill and what they would have to
accept. That is more or less why those people from the producer
groups walked out on that meeting. I do not think too many
people stayed at that meeting to listen to the minister or to
have their concerns brought forward.
To me that is not listening, it is dictating. It would be wise
for this government to accept the premise that we are here to
represent our constituents and not to represent Ottawa to the
grassroots people in our home constituencies.
The minister went on to say: “In his intervention last
Tuesday, the member for Yorkton—Melville admitted that he had
done just that the very next day and after my meeting. The
member for Portage—Lisgar has had meetings about the details of
Bill C-4 and many other Reformers have done the same. The
extraparliamentary meetings to discuss Bill C-4 while that bill
is pending before the House are not a breach of privilege, they
are not in contempt and neither am I”.
The Speaker has just ruled that is the case, but I want to talk
about the meetings I attended in Saskatchewan and Alberta. There
were 600 people at the meeting in Weyburn. The minister was
invited to participate and to bring forward his concerns or his
ideas but he did not show up.
When the question was asked of how many in the audience wanted a
single desk selling system, not one hand went up. Eighty to
ninety per cent of the farmers said that they wanted a dual
marketing system or a voluntary wheat board. Nothing in this bill
promotes a voluntary wheat board. That is why this minister has
a tremendous number of problems with listening to farmers and
getting this bill through the House.
After the meeting in Yorkton—Melville a producer wrote to the
minister to explain that it was one of the best and most
informative farm meetings he had ever seen held in that area. He
said that he supported that type of meeting.
Because the minister did not attend and did not want to listen,
they held a vote to see how many people at that meeting thought
the minister should resign for not listening to the producers.
Over 80% lifted their hands to say that the minister should
resign for not representing the interests of western farmers.
They used to call this area the red square. This gives us an idea
of how much attention he is paying to this issue.
I do not know why the minister does not want to listen, why he
would rather prosecute farmers.
In 1994 a group of farmers made a presentation to the minister
on the frozen wheat issue. They wanted him to look into why Sask
Pool or the wheat board dumped grain into Montana at half price.
He did not respond after the meeting. He never did anything
about it. This is what the minister did.
The minister threw a huge forfeiture against a farmer who during
a protest here two years ago had loaded 50 pounds of wheat in a
pick-up truck, took it across the border and donated it to a 4-H
club in Montana. The farmer did not know what was going on and
he used the pick-up truck to transport his kids to hockey games
in Montana. He also has some interest in some land there. They
kept jacking up the forfeitures. He has $132,000 worth of
forfeitures against this half ton pick-up truck.
This is how the minister is treating these western farmers. It
is causing a lot of animosity toward the minister and this
government. It is a sign that democracy in Ottawa just is not
working. When I see farmers fined for taking 50 pounds of barley
across the line in protest, then I see people smuggling marijuana
and cocaine on the streets without fines or imprisonment,
something is wrong.
1220
All that these farmers have been doing is trying to get a better
price to bring more bucks into the economy and to be able to have
a better standard of living on the farm than before, and they are
getting fines for it. That is what this bill is about. It is a
bill which is supposed to change the wheat board to give farmers
more democracy and more choices. It is exactly the opposite.
One of the former wheat board commissioners was interviewed and
he said that it is becoming more secretive. On the old wheat
board the commissioners at least had the authority to refuse
certain recommendations made by the minister or parliament. Today
he will have the power to fire and hire on the will of his
desires. That is democratic? That is the way this whole
government is going.
It is very important that the government not just listen to
western farmers. If this is the type of a marketing system that
we can be controlled by, where the government states “You have
to turn your grain over, you have to take the price that we
dictate to you”, why will it not do it to our RRSPs? It is the
same thing.
Any marketing system is at risk if this type of a bill is
allowed to pass this House. It is of utmost importance that this
bill gets defeated, but with the Liberal backbenchers being
controlled by the front benches or the cabinet, I do not see much
hope of that happening. It means one thing, that in the next
federal election western farmers have to make sure that they do
not have a Liberal government or else they will be indebted to
this type of bill for the next half century.
That is why there is such a big protest to this bill in western
Canada. It is not just a bill about marketing grain, but it is a
bill about freedom and property rights. It surprises me when I
look at some of the western provinces. They are prepared to go
to court on gun legislation to protect the right whether you
should register your gun or not, but they have not had the guts
to stand up and say to the federal government “This is property,
this is grain that the farmers grew. This is something they have
the right to enjoy. This is something they have the right to
sell for the best price that they can get”.
Democracy works in this fashion. Democracy works from the
bottom up. Democracy works when the elected parliamentarians
listen to the people. Dictatorship is the reverse. Dictatorship
works when government dictates to the constituents what they have
to do and how they will do it.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you have listened and I hope you have taken
it to heart. I hope you can vote against your government and do
what is right.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member would not
want to urge the Speaker to indicate a preference one way or the
other.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker and hon. members of the House of Commons, I am pleased to
have the opportunity to speak on this group of motions with
respect to Bill C-4.
Even though I am not a western producer or a member of
Parliament from western Canada, I am a producer from Ontario. I
did have the privilege of travelling with the committee when we
had hearings out west regarding the Canadian Wheat Board.
The motion in this group proposes a number of alternatives with
respect to the governance of the Canadian Wheat Board. Under
Bill C-4, a 15 member board of directors would be created with 10
directors elected by the producers, four directors appointed by
the governor in council and the president and CEO appointed by
the governor in council. The governor in council would appoint
the president based on the minister's recommendation after the
minister consulted with the rest of the board of directors.
The intention of this legislation is to put the decision making
power into the hands of the producers and I certainly attest to
that. However, the federal government does have substantial
interests at stake.
It will continue to provide the Canadian Wheat Board with
substantial financial guarantees. That is taxpayers' money.
It will guarantee the initial payments. It will guarantee sales
made under the credit grain sales program. It will continue to
guarantee the Canadian Wheat Board's $5 billion to $6 billion in
day to day borrowings.
1225
The Canadian Wheat Board will also continue to perform public
policy functions such as issuing export licences. For this
reason the government must maintain a direct role by appointing
the president as well as a minority of members of the board of
directors.
Let me emphasize that the government realizes the importance of
a CWB which is accountable to the producers.
Bill C-4 already specifies that the board of directors with a
two-thirds majority elected by farmers would set the remuneration
of the president. The legislation also makes it clear that the
minister cannot appoint a president without first consulting with
the board. The board will be able to review the president's
performance and recommend his or her dismissal if board members
feel that performance is inadequate.
Bill C-4 reserves the final decision concerning dismissal of the
president for the governor in council. However it is clear that
the board of directors would have several means for making its
displeasure known and it is difficult to see how a president
could continue in office without the support of the board.
In short, the government's power to appoint and dismiss does not
take away the board's influence over the CEO.
There is another reason for having the government make some
appointments to the board. It is in keeping with good corporate
practice that some outside directors should have corporate
experience in areas such as management, finance and marketing.
This can be accomplished by having the governor in council
appoint a minority of the directors. It is important to realize
that all directors whether elected or appointed have equal status
and the same responsibilities and duties.
One can understand the desire to have candidate expenditure
limits on elections for the board of directors and to set out
more specifics in regard to the voting rules. However these are
items which would more properly be handled through the
regulations, not legislation. Enshrining these points in
legislation would mean that the issue would come back to
Parliament each time a modification was required, such as
increasing candidate expenditure limits. Regulations can be
updated and changed to meet current circumstances with much
greater ease.
At this time I would like to bring to the attention of the House
a few questions which have been brought constantly to the
attention of the committee, whether when the committee was
sitting in Ottawa or whether when the committee was travelling
out west.
One of the questions that was most frequently asked was: Will
the Canadian Wheat Board become more accountable to farmers? The
answer is yes. For the first time in history the Canadian Wheat
Board will be run by a board of directors. There will be 15
directors in total.
The farmers will take control over their marketing agency by
directly electing 10 of their directors, a two-thirds majority.
The elected directors will reflect the views of farmers and
Canadian Wheat Board decision making will be where it should be.
They will be expected to demonstrate accountability to producers.
Ultimately if the producers are not satisfied with what the
Canadian Wheat Board is doing, they can change the directors in
subsequent elections.
Another question which was frequently posed was: Will the
directors have complete access to all Canadian Wheat Board
information? Here again the answer is yes. All directors will
be entitled to complete disclosure of all Canadian Wheat Board
facts and figures, including but not limited to fully audited
financial statements. They will be able to examine the prices at
which grain is sold, the price premiums achieved, all operating
costs and whether the Canadian Wheat Board is running
efficiently.
With their full knowledge of the Canadian Wheat Board and its
global competition, the directors would be in the best position
to assess information that should be made public or that for
commercial reasons should remain confidential.
Bill C-4 would empower farmers with more say in future decisions
over their marketing system and provide a mechanism through which
producers can implement many different marketing innovations.
That is important to note. I repeat that it would empower
farmers with more say in future decisions over their marketing
system and provide the farmers, not bureaucrats, with a mechanism
through which producers can implement many different marketing
innovations.
Unfortunately, the amendments in this group will not contribute
to this objective and therefore cannot receive the government's
support.
1230
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very proud to enter this debate as we deal with
this group of amendments to Bill C-4.
While I was home during the Christmas break, I deliberately went
to groups that were previously very much in favour of the
Canadian Wheat Board both in the past and to some extent up to
the present. I was amazed at the differences even among those
who had been most loyal to the concept of the wheat board and
what is growing on the prairies, and the reason they would like
to see the very amendments the Reform Party is moving to Bill
C-4.
There is one fundamental thing wrong at the present time when we
call this the Canadian Wheat Board. If you take a C and
complete the arc, you have an O. To many of the people in
western Canada it is not the Canadian Wheat Board, it is the
Ottawa wheat board. They look on this wheat board now as being
something not within the prairies, not within the area of where
they are growing grain, but rather something in far off Ottawa
which is controlling the livelihood of the producers on the
prairies. Maybe they have a point.
First of all, the legislation to the wheat board is made right
here in Ottawa.
During the debate on the two school questions, the one in Quebec
and the one in Newfoundland, one of the hon. members opposite
asked me what right I had in even speaking on the school bill as
it relates to the province of Newfoundland. I would take that
question and reverse it as to the decision of this bill.
A former member speaking to the bill said it was likely that
this bill would pass. Look at the representation from the areas
that produce this bill. Look at the membership in the House of
Commons from the people who represent these producers. I come
from a totally agricultural area, as does my hon. colleague who
has already spoken, as does my hon. colleague who will likely
follow me.
These are the people who should be listened to. Instead of
that, the Ottawa wheat board was made in Ottawa, was legislated
in Ottawa, but any necessary changes should come from the west
where the producers are situated.
If this government were listening, which it has not been so far,
it would listen to what the members on this side of the House had
to say.
The court decisions that have arisen in the last two years have
all come down to a final statement, which is extremely dangerous.
Not only is the statement dangerous but it has brought a great
deal of hatred on the part of the producer. In every court case
of a farmer versus the wheat board, the legal representation for
the wheat board had always concluded the debate this way. I want
members to listen very carefully, because this is pretty well a
quote. The wheat board is entirely responsible to the Government
of Canada and not the producer. That is what the decision has
been.
If they would listen to what we are saying, if they would listen
to the other agencies, they would be taking steps in constructing
the wheat board bill so that it in fact does listen to the
producer and the necessary steps will be taken.
It is the Ottawa wheat board. It is legislated here. The court
decisions have said that it is responsible only to the
government.
Then we have the board appointments. Again, it is the Ottawa
wheat board. The board makes the appointments from here. If the
minister in charge of the wheat board is not totally satisfied
with them, or even a little dissatisfied, out that minister goes.
Who makes that decision? Again, it is made in Ottawa. It has
nothing to do with the producer in any way.
I am saying here that board appointments can be an area that is
only increasing the suspicion in western Canada that there is
something wrong with this Ottawa controlled wheat board.
1235
Let me give an example. We have a multimillion dollar project
being studied in my constituency. It probably takes in 150
producers in an area where a circle can be drawn around in the
best growing durum in the world. No place else grows better
durum than right there. The better the durum, the better the
pasta.
These people want to go in and set up a pasta plant in the same
way that there would be a closed co-operative. The
producer-owner wants to grow his durum, take it to his plant and
put it on to the North American market. The only way that will be
viable is if the wheat board gets in gear, gets its thoughts
together and says we are coming into a new century. The people in
western Canada are not going to be considered to be hewers of
wood and drawers of water anymore. The previous wheat board says
get everything out of the west. Let us reap the advantages.
That is why in Saskatchewan the canola growers, the rape seed
growers and all the other products being produced off-board have
an industry right in western Canada to accompany that. They do
not like one bit the idea of the inclusion clause which may draw
them back into the wheat board and shut down their industry.
I believe this government should take this antiquated bill back
to the drawing board. Pull the bill altogether. Take it right
off because even those who four months ago supported the wheat
board in its entirety no longer support that. It is dead. It is
a dead issue.
As long as this wheat board and all its operation does not fall
under the long arm of the auditor general, that suspicion is
going to continue. It will continue to the point that there is
going to be so much disruption, if the government does not pull
the bill now, take it back to the drawing board, it will
self-destruct by the time we turn the century.
We do not want to destroy grain marketing. This is 1998, not
1943. The west wants to be a producer of some of its own products
but cannot be as long as the long arm of the Ottawa wheat board
sits in the way.
It is interesting to note that the provincial Government of
Saskatchewan, a traditional supporter of this monopoly buying,
decided it wanted to get into hog production and then said the
barley is under the control of the wheat board. In order to make
its hog operations productive, it would have to take that portion
off the wheat board. Permission granted. There it is. It would
not be a viable operation.
All these things I have referred to are in the entrepreneurial
spirit of the young farmers in Saskatchewan and in the other
prairie provinces. They hate the thought of going out and doing
anything on their own because the wheat board would step in.
There is a court case going on now in Saskatchewan. I want to
illustrate this. Here is a group of farmers growing organic
grain. All the people of Canada should listen to this. They grow
the grain and they want to mill that grain because it has a
demand across North America. No, sir. The long arm of the
Ottawa wheat board says they can mill it but they will have to
pay the penalty at so much money before shipping it out.
This whole thing is antiquated. It is completely out of date.
For the sake of a $6 billion plus business, let us pull the bill.
Let us go back and ask the producers to take it back to the
drawing board and all of Canada will prosper.
If they proceed with this bill, we will have nothing but
hardship, court cases and farmers leaving the land, which they
most certainly will do.
1240
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know if you have had much contact with the
farming community or if you know much about agriculture and grain
growing, but that is the subject of our debate. If you were to
come to Saskatchewan and observe the harvesting of grain you
would observe a very large machine called a combine that goes
through the fields and does what it says, combines several
operations in the harvesting process.
I am going to tell members a little story about this combine and
see if members agree that we should have this kind of machine.
The combine used for the harvesting of grain has a pick-up on the
front of it which gathers in the grain and elevates it to a
cylinder that threshes out the grain, and wheat and barley is
what we are talking about here. This grain then goes from the
cylinder over to the straw walkers and those straw walkers
vibrate the little kernels of grain out through the sieves at the
bottom and then the grain is elevated up.
If one had one of these combines and in this last stage, instead
of taking all these nice kernels of grain and putting them up in
a hopper where one could collect them and simply distribute them
back on to the field where they came from, would one still keep
this combine? Would anyone keep a combine that goes out, gathers
the grain and then simply destroys it, in effect, by spreading it
all out on the field again? Of course not. One would get rid of
this combine immediately because it would not be harvesting the
grain.
This is an analogy that relates directly to what the wheat board
minister is doing with this issue of the Canadian Wheat Board. I
describe this so that all the people of Canada can get an
understanding of how ridiculous our situation is here.
This government and this minister for the last four years have
gone out into the prairie provinces and gathered wisdom and
information on the wheat board just like a combine gathers in the
grain. The minister has threshed through it and sifted it.
Then, instead of putting it into a good bill, he simply destroys
it all and puts a bill before the House that is not acceptable.
This is an example of how useless the process has been of trying
to find out what we should do with the Canadian Wheat Board for
the last four years.
There have been many good ideas picked up from farmers and these
ideas would have really improved the marketing of grain in this
country. But they have been destroyed by the government just
like that illustration of the combine that simply does all this
and destroys the grain by simply spreading it out on the ground
where it is no longer available and irretrievable.
I want to tell members this morning something that has happened
in the last month in the province of Saskatchewan where I come
from. By accident, Bill C-4 which we are debating today has not
been rammed through the House. It was intended to be finished
and be law before Christmas. However, because there were so many
other pressing matters before the House it was delayed.
That gave us the opportunity as members of Parliament to go back
to our constituents in January and ask them about Bill C-4 and
about amendments that we had been proposing. These amendments
come from the farmers. As a member of Parliament I have gone out
there and sifted through all the suggestions and put forth
amendments to Bill C-4, amendments I was hoping the government
would listen to.
The farming community has become very divided on the issue in
the last four years because of government inaction. This debate
has been before the country for a long time. Many people in the
rest of Canada may not realize how important this issue is and
how long it has been dragged out.
The weakness of the government has become evident in this issue
more than probably most that I have any involvement with. There
has been ample opportunity for the government to resolve this but
it has done nothing about it.
Now that Bill C-4 has been introduced I would like the minister
to answer a question. I hope he will show up at some time to do
so. Whom is he representing when he introduces this legislation?
I hope the minister will come to the House some time and answer
whom is he representing when he introduces this legislation.
1245
The Canadian Wheat Board should be there to carry out the wishes
of as many grain producers as it possibly can. It is not there
to carry out the wishes of the minister or the prime minister, or
the bureaucrats at the Canadian Wheat Board office. That is not
the purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board. I submit that is not
the case. I have very strong reasons for saying that because of
the experience of the last month.
What is the point in introducing changes to the Canadian Wheat
Board that farmers do not want? That is why I want the minister
to come to the House some time and answer. Whom is he
representing? What is the point of making changes to the
Canadian Wheat Board that most farmers do not support?
What level of dissatisfaction would we need before the minister
would withdraw Bill C-4? Would we need 51% of the farmers
opposed to it before he would withdraw it, or would the level
have to be a little higher? Let us say 66% or two-thirds of
farmers. Maybe it would have to be 75% opposed to Bill C-4
before the minister would withdraw it. What level of
dissatisfaction would we need? Would it be 80% or does it have
to be 100% before the minister would withdraw it?
I am making a major point in the whole issue. I have gone back
to the farmers of Saskatchewan. I have asked them what they
think about Bill C-4. They have told me in no uncertain terms
about it. I went beyond that. I asked them about some
amendments that have been proposed. I put forth amendments that
can be put into three simple categories. I asked farmers about
those amendments, what they thought.
I am telling the minister publicly what the people of
Saskatchewan are saying. I have put forth an amendment to change
the Canadian Wheat Board from orderly marketing to securing the
best financial return for producers. The present aim of the
wheat board is out of date. Farmers do not want that. They want
the purpose of the wheat board to be that it gets the best
financial return for the people it represents. Does that not
seem reasonable?
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, the percentage of farmers who support
that amendment? It is between 96% and 97%. Let us ponder that
for a moment. For the minister to disregard 96% to 97% of
producers is a travesty of democracy, of justice or whatever we
can think of. I cannot fathom why the minister ploughs ahead
when the dissatisfaction level with Bill C-4 is so great.
Does it have to be 51%? Does it have to be 75%? What if it is
96% to 97%? All the people of Canada are listening. Let us do
something about an undemocratic institution.
I have a lot more to describe about the meeting I held in
Yorkton. It was an non-partisan crowd, a group of 300 farmers
who gave direct input as to what I should say in the House. I
need the time and will take every available opportunity today to
speak to what they have told me.
I challenge the minister at some point to come to the House to
say who he is representing. Why is he pushing the bill through
the House when there is so little support for it out there? Why
does he not listen to the amendments that have been put forward?
It is essential for people to have faith in their government, to
see democracy effective and working, and to have a wheat board
that is strong for everyone.
1250
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are now debating
Group No. 4 at report stage, which has to do with the directors
and the president. It would not be a bad idea for members who
are speaking to be a little more relevant.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take up your challenge and talk about the election of
directors to the new Canadian Wheat Board that is being proposed
by the minister.
The essence of this whole question is about control. It is
about control in that the government wants to retain the ability
to appoint five directors, one-third of the directors of the
Canadian Wheat Board. It is about control in that the minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board wants to appoint the
chief executive officer.
What this debate is about in my constituency, and I believe all
of western Canada, is a matter of choice. The debate is about
choice but the minister is not listening.
We just heard my colleague from Yorkton—Melville talk about how
little support there is for the changes proposed by Bill C-4.
This is not the first time the bill has been before parliament.
It died as Bill C-72 in the last parliament when the election was
called. There was no support for it at that time. The minister
has brought it back and has made it even worse. He wants to put
new crops under the Canadian Wheat Board.
How will five directors appointed by government have any impact
in making changes when we will still have a corporation that is a
state enterprise and a monopoly? If that is the best the
government can do, it is a total failure. It is a disservice to
those people who want to use the Canadian Wheat Board to pool
their product and accept an average price.
A percentage of farmers in western Canada want to do exactly
that. However a lot of farmers in western Canada do not want to
use the Canadian Wheat Board. They want a choice in how they
market their grain. That choice is not available. In fact the
section of the act which talks about to whom the Canadian Wheat
Board is responsible is not dealt with. It says that it is
responsible to government, not to producers.
My colleague from Yorkton—Melville asked that a preamble be
included which indicates that the objective of the Canadian Wheat
Board should be to achieve the maximum benefits for producers,
but the government is not listening to that.
At the very time the bill is before parliament the minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board knows that these
amendments have not been dealt with. We were in the process of
debating some 40 motions when we were interrupted during the
Christmas break. At this very time the minister is in
Saskatchewan having meetings with producers, asking who should be
appointed to the new board of directors. If that is not contempt
for parliament I am not sure what is. It takes away my ability
to do my job.
At the same time we have one of the biggest past supporters of
the Canadian Wheat Board changing horses. The Sask Pool seems to
be bailing out. It is jumping ship, realizing that things are
changing.
One of the major newspapers farmers get in western Canada is the
Western Producer. Its headline on January 29 was
“Canadian Wheat Board Supporters March Against Proposed
Changes”. A group of demonstrators was outside when the
minister was having his clandestine meeting about who should be
appointed to the new Canadian Wheat Board. They were chanting
“Goodale must go”. These people support orderly marketing.
They see changes that are not acceptable. Nothing will destroy
the Canadian Wheat Board faster than a minister of agriculture
who has the arrogance not to listen to producers.
Who asked for the legislation? The Reform Party suggested some
time ago that there should be a choice in how farmers market
their grain, that we should keep the Canadian Wheat Board for
those people who want to use it but allow choice for those who do
not. We also suggested that if we are to have that choice and if
the Canadian Wheat Board continues to operate a board of
directors consisting of producers and farmers it is a good idea,
but it should be elected from producers so there is
accountability.
It should not be one in which the government of the day decides
to appoint one-third of the directors, to have a CEO appointed by
government, and continues to have effective control. The board
of directors would be controlled by the Minister responsible for
the Canadian Wheat Board and that is simply not good enough in
these times.
1255
This is all about accountability. Russia used to have state
trading enterprises. We have seen what planned economies did
over there. They destroyed the ability to produce enough food to
feed even their own countrymen. It is going that way here too.
Canada is moving out of step with the entire world.
The other day in the House a question was asked of the Minister
for International Trade about his support for the financial
services package. Why was that done? The Minister for
International Trade is a seatmate of the Minister responsible for
the Canadian Wheat Board. While he was up explaining why the
Canadian government was supporting the financial services package
signed in Geneva, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board was looking at him and applauding until it got to a part
that he did not like.
In response to that question the Minister for International
Trade said that the recent crisis in southeast Asia and the APEC
meetings in Vancouver pointed out the need for more transparency
in how these institutions work. Indeed that is what is needed.
The IMF has asked southeast Asian countries, if they are to
receive packages to transform their economies, to have more
transparency in industries like banking.
At the same time the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board was looking up at the Minister for International Trade.
People had puzzled looks on their faces. This is the minister
who will not allow transparency in the Canadian Wheat Board. He
does not want the auditor general to audit the books of the
Canadian Wheat Board. He does not want them to come under the
Access to Information Act or the Secrecy Act. What kind of a
responsible minister is that? I suggest the minister will be the
death knell for the Canadian Wheat Board. There are people who
would not feel badly if that were to happen, but they are very
few and far between.
Western Canadian farmers respect each other's abilities and
responsibilities. There are those who want to market their own
grain, which I support 100%. I also respect the wish of those
who want to use the Canadian Wheat Board as a pooled account to
accept average returns. We could have it both ways, but we
cannot if the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
introduces such idiotic changes to the board that he antagonizes
the entire agricultural community in western Canada.
I join with those protesters in Regina that said the Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board must go to bring about
some kind of half decent reform to our entire grain handling
system.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the Group No. 4 amendments
to Bill C-4 at report stage. I will first deal with the
amendment concerning a fully elected board. That is what farmers
are almost unanimously requesting on the prairies. There is only
a halfway elected board being proposed by the minister.
The whole idea of having five appointed members, political hacks
sitting on a board which is there ostensibly to serve the
interests of Canadian farmers, is absolutely repugnant. With
that set up, as long as the minister has his five captive
appointees they only have to win the support of three out of ten
of elected producer board members and they can do anything they
like in, of or for the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not know of
any other organization that operates under those parameters.
1300
Why should the board not be fully elected and empowered to elect
its own officers? Has the minister's legal training destroyed
his faith in the capacity of farmers to manage their own affairs?
Does he look upon them as a bunch simple serfs who should bow and
tug their earth stained forelocks whenever they approach his
eminence or any of his bureaucrats? Farmers are not made that
way.
This is a little personal anecdote. On January 20 I attended a
grain day meeting with about 200 farmers in Swift Current. It
was organized by the Canadian Wheat Board. Most of the 200
farmers present were staunch supporters of the Canadian Wheat
Board. I might even say most of them were rabid supporters of
the Canadian Wheat Board. The key speaker was Lorne Hehn, the
chief commissioner of the board.
When a motion was proposed from the floor that the meeting go on
record as favouring the withdrawal of Bill C-4 from
consideration, a huge majority voted in favour of that motion.
They are wheat board supporters and almost to a man or a woman,
they do not want this bill. So much for the results of the
minister's vaunted consultation with producers. I would like to
know which producers he consulted with and what precisely they
produce because he sure was not consulting with the farmers who
produce the grain.
I conduct polls on a regular basis because, unlike the people
over there, I do like to know the views of my constituents on the
issues of the day. In my most recent mail-in poll I asked a very
specific question: Would you like me to support or oppose Bill
C-4?
Replies are still trickling in. Of the responses I have already
received only 23% say they would like me to support this
legislation. I know the minister is very well aware that support
for the board is stronger in my riding than anywhere else in
western Canada but that support clearly does not extend to him or
to his ill-conceived legislation which he is trying to ram down
the throats of farmers.
Another amendment which is very important, and it also applies
to this question of whether or not the board is going to be
democratic, is that the fully elected board, not the minister,
must control the selection of the president if farmers are going
to have any real say in how the board is going to operate. After
all it is the guy who has his hands on the levers on a day to day
basis who is really going to make the important decisions.
A president cannot act as directed by the farmer elected board
of directors if the minister at his own discretion can call for
the termination of that man or woman's position. It just does
not make any sense. A president who answers in this way to the
minister cannot act in the best interests of the corporation or
the producers. He can only be a captive of ministerial
discretion.
I would like to jump to No. 18 on this list of proposed
amendments. The directors and officers must be placed in a
position where the duty and care of farmers, the interests of
farmers, is their primary purpose, not serving the interests of
the corporation.
1305
There was a court case in Manitoba not too long ago wherein it
was determined that the board does not have a fiduciary
responsibility to farmers. Their responsibility, and this is a
clear court decision, is to the board. If we are going to work
within those parameters, surely to heaven the board must be
responsible to farmers, must be chosen by farmers and must choose
its own officers from among farmers. Otherwise we simply
continue the same situation where the board and the board alone
is at the end of the responsibility road and it has a fiduciary
responsibility only to the government.
The board's job under those conditions is not to get the best
available price for the farmer's grain. It is to sell the grain
in the largest possible volumes as quickly as possible and get it
out of its hair. That is a rather absurd way to operate a
business enterprise.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak again on C-4. The farmers of Dauphin—Swan
River believe in the wheat board but want more accountability.
They also believe that options must be made available to the
producer.
Farmers in Dauphin—Swan River want the wheat board to be not
only accountable but more flexible and more transparent. This
would mean that the Canadian Wheat Board should change the
current system of government appointments to a fully elected
board of directors, not just 10 out of 15.
The Canadian Wheat Board must be made more accountable to the
Access to Information Act. In other words if people want
information, they should have the right to get it by asking.
The wheat board should be audited by the auditor general.
Former speakers have alluded to that aspect.
There is no doubt that the current act maintains the minister's
excessive power and influence over the wheat board. That needs to
be changed.
Agriculture is the backbone of the economy in Dauphin—Swan
River. All economic activity in Dauphin—Swan River is dependent
on the economic welfare of the farmer and the agricultural
community. If the farmer has a dollar in his pocket, it is
probably quite likely he will spend it and through this
expenditure life will certainly be enhanced. This will improve
life generally for all rural Manitobans in Dauphin—Swan River.
The lesson here is that governments must learn that they need to
leave more money in the pockets of the producers and citizens of
this country. The governance of the Canadian Wheat Board must do
all it can to put money into the pockets of the producers whom
they are supposed to represent.
On February 2 I was absent from this House to attend a meeting
in Strathclair, Manitoba. The meeting concerned the Canadian
Wheat Board and grain transportation. Present at the meeting
were representatives from the Canadian Wheat Board as well as
exporters of other grain products, and the Hudson Bay rail line
company.
The most significant change that has occurred in this past year
is the privatization of both the Hudson Bay rail line and the
port of Churchill. It was interesting that back in 1930, as I
have indicated to this House previously, the government of the
day had vision for this country concerning the movement of grain
the shortest distance to markets and not just east and west as
has been occurring over the last 60 years.
That is the reason the port of Churchill was built back in 1930,
which is a long time ago. The mileage distance has not changed.
Today the port of Churchill is still 1,600 kilometres closer to
European markets than to Thunder Bay. The port of Churchill is
still the catchment area for 25% of the grain growing region of
Canada.
1310
Despite this knowledge, obviously it has not had an impact in
the decisions that have been made by this House and by the
Canadian Wheat Board over the last 60 years in which way the
transportation of grain should occur.
It is hard to believe that even today that facility is like new
probably because of underutilization. It still has a storage
capacity of five million bushels. It has harbours for oceangoing
ships, much larger ships than they can handle in the Thunder Bay
ports.
At the Strathclair February 2 meeting the Canadian Wheat Board
representatives were ecstatic in telling people how much grain
they shipped from the port this past year, 400,000 tonnes. There
are over 30 million tonnes of grain grown in western Canada so
400,000 tonnes is really a drop in the bucket.
There is no argument that it is cheaper to ship agriculture
products through the port of Churchill. Farmers should no longer
be forced to transport their grain, their agricultural product,
to a port that increases their transportation costs and does not
maximize their returns. They must have the right to ship to other
ports of choice. They do not at this time because they are under
the influence and authority of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The transfer of the Hudson Bay rail line to a short line
operator should be viewed as good news. Likewise the transfer of
the port of Churchill to the private sector should be viewed as
good news to the government.
All the communities along the short line depend on activity for
sustainability not only on the line but also the port. The town
of Churchill depends on the port for economic survival. This past
summer I had the opportunity to talk to the mayor and council of
Churchill. They told me about the impact of the port. If the
port was not there, their community probably would disappear off
the edge of the map.
The rail line brings tourism. It brings people who want to come
up to Churchill. Look at the picture of the famous Canadian
polar bear on the toonie. This can only happen if the shipment
of agricultural products continues to be headed in the northward
direction.
I would like to close by saying that the fate of the Hudson Bay
rail line and the port of Churchill is in the hands of the
Canadian Wheat Board at this time because of the rules that are
utilized in terms of the transportation of the grain produced on
the prairies. The future of the short line and the port are
dependent on the grain moving to the northern port.
At the February 2 meeting at Strathclair, I challenged the
Canadian Wheat Board representatives that if it is in the best
interests of farmers to move grain north to Churchill and if that
proposal and that direction will put money in the hands of
farmers, then what seems to be the problem with the Canadian
Wheat Board moving grain north through the port of Churchill? As
well I challenged them to double or triple their record for 1997
which was set at 400,000 tonnes.
The bottom line is that the Canadian Wheat Board must be more
accountable to the farmers of Canada. This bill needs a lot of
change before it will make that happen.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to join my colleagues in addressing Bill
C-4, particularly Group No. 4 of the amendments.
The Canadian Wheat Board is of great significance in my
constituency. In and around Lethbridge and indeed right across
the prairies people deal with the wheat board on a daily basis.
The wheat board and this government somewhere along the line
have lost touch. The board seems to have forgotten to whom it is
accountable and whose interests it was originally destined to
serve.
1315
A true producer mandate and true accountability can be returned
to the Canadian Wheat Board, if it can be returned, and a great
deal of division among producers can be alleviated. They can
resume their primary responsibilities to supply Canadians and
many other citizens of the world with food to feed their
families while making a decent living for their own families.
There are grain farmers who want to see the Canadian Wheat Board
dismantled completely because they are so fed up with the lack of
accountability to producers and a lack of options. We are almost
at an impasse. Either this minister continues to ignore the
demands of producers while many grain farmers are inappropriately
fined and jailed or he takes this sorry excuse of a bill back to
the drawing board, start agreeing to the important amendments
presented by my colleagues and start listening to the full scope
of recommendations by producers and their western grain marketing
panel.
Producers want a fully elected board. Why does the government
continue to ignore the wishes of the majority of farmers? The
Liberal government wants to continue to interfere with democracy
by opting for a voting system that includes five government
appointed directors. Why is the government afraid to give in to
a completely democratic and fully elected wheat board? The time
has come for the government to relinquish its monopoly on grain
marketing. A fully effective board of directors is a fully
elected board of directors, if the voice of farmers is truly to
be heard. With 5 appointed members and 10 elected members, only
30% of those elected can sway the majority on a board set up like
this.
The government has chosen to cherry pick through the
recommendations of the western grain marketing panel, continuing
to focus on the recommendations which fit its agenda and ignoring
the recommendations which fit producer needs. This Liberal
government refuses to relinquish its strong arm tactics in grain
marketing. The time is long overdue for government to remove its
political interference in the marketing of grain and start giving
producers the options they have long requested.
In Bill C-4 the government has once again failed to prove to
producers that it is in the grain marketing business for the
benefit of producers. The time is long overdue for grain
marketing to be treated with common sense, using sound marketing
principles, in order to bring maximum returns to producers for
their products. Monopolies in other industries are rarely
tolerated, so why are western grain producers the exception to
the rule? This proves the government and this minister are out
of touch with western Canada and its grain producers.
The majority of producer groups opposed to Bill C-4 have been
working hard and steadily since the House last debated this
legislation. We have all attended meetings over the
December-January break and overwhelmingly people want this bill
taken back and reworked. They have continued to pressure the
minister to take opposition amendments seriously. There are many
of these producer groups, Canadian canola growers, Manitoba
canola growers, flax growers, oat producers, Alberta winter
wheat, western barley growers, and the list goes on an on.
According to a group called the committee to end secrecy at the
Canadian Wheat Board, and this should be an interest to all
taxpayers of Canada, not just farmers and producers, Canadian
taxpayers hold a $7 billion liability through the Canadian Wheat
Board and have paid millions of dollars on behalf of foreign
grain purchases in order to hold this liability to its current
level. Although the Canadian Wheat Board does produce an annual
report which provides a limited amount of information, its
exemption from the federal Access to Information Act means
taxpayers and farmers are unable to independently evaluate its
operations and performance. When questioned by producers to
validate these claims, we cannot because the information is kept
secret.
A detailed synopsis of the $7 billion liability and the
transactions that led to this debt is also being requested. The
outstanding amount owed is equal to $1000 for every average
family in Canada.
The government has not shown producers that it will be
responsible to them through a completely producer elected board.
Instead it insists on appointing the key members of the board.
Speaking to Group No. 4, Motion No. 7, the act should be amended
so as to render the board fully elected in order to comply with
the wishes of the majority of farmers. Subsequently, if the
aforementioned amendment were adopted, section 3.024 would be
deleted since it would not be necessary to specify equal powers
between elected and non-elected directors.
On Motion No. 8 it is imperative that if the government refuses
to support a fully elected board that quorum for board of
directors meetings require two elected directors for every one
government appointed director.
1320
The necessity of such a motion is self-evident. However, if the
government could simply accept the democratic principle behind a
fully elected board, we could find a resolution that would better
serve the interests of our producers.
In addressing Group No. 4 amendments, Motions Nos. 9, 14, 15 and
17, the importance of the hiring, firing and control of a
president must be left in the hands of an elected board. Once
again, the issue of democracy should supersede sweeping
ministerial powers.
If the government could look at the logistics of such an
amendment, its sense of fairness and justice would inevitably
lead it to conclude that the wheat board president would be more
accountable to producers if he or she were directed by the farmer
elected board of directors instead of being held to the whim of a
minister who cannot possibly be more in tune with the best
interests of producers than producers themselves. To reach any
other conclusion is insulting to producers.
Logically speaking, who is the closest in touch with what
producers need, an elected board of directors subject to the
approval of their peers or a far removed minister in Ottawa who
in all honesty has a scope of responsibility that exceeds and
often conflicts with the interests of producers? Leave the daily
workings of a grain marketing board to those in the business.
Motion No. 10 of today's amendments necessitates support because
multi-generation farming operations are the cornerstone of
farming communities across this great country. This is an issue
of respect and fairness. The votes of producers who rely
exclusively on farming for their livelihood and whose livelihood
depends on how the Canadian Wheat Board markets its grain must
have more weight than producers who do not.
Getting back to the issue of ministerial involvement versus
democratic participation, I now refer to Motions Nos. 11 and 12.
In the process of electing directors to the wheat board, any
possibility of ministerial heavy handedness should be avoided at
all costs.
On January 21, 1998 the minister showed his contempt for
democracy in this House of Commons by holding a meeting in Regina
to discuss the rules for the election of directors to the
Canadian Wheat Board board of directors as proposed in Bill C-4.
This shows a disregard for Parliament, as the bill is still being
debated, which includes amendments that would determine the
number of directors to be elected.
A number of the groups invited to the Regina meeting walked out
on the minister when he refused to discuss amendments to Bill
C-4, and there were farmers outside protesting.
The importance of Motion No. 16 cannot be ignored. Motion No.
16 is the guiding principle of responsibility in business
dealings. The Liberal government will be hard pressed to deny
the ethical importance of Motions Nos. 16 and 19. Making the
wheat board a signatory to the international code of ethics for
Canadian businesses and requiring the directors and officers of
the CWB to be guided by the duty of care should be applauded by
all members of this House.
I am confident that all my colleagues, regardless of political
affiliation, will support amendments that call for ethical,
social and environmentally responsible business practices. Any
member who votes against such righteous amendments will have a
lot of explaining to do to their constituents.
To conclude, the Liberal government took the time and went
through considerable effort in setting up a panel to make
recommendations in producing Bill C-4. Why does it not put to
rest the suspicions of producers and the divisive aspects of the
Canadian Wheat Board?
Rural families of Canada, families on both sides of this issue,
deserve more. They deserve more than this incomplete effort
known as Bill C-4. In order to safeguard the interests of
Canadian producers, I recommend that all amendments that put
democracy ahead of sweeping ministerial powers and hold the wheat
board to a code of ethical, social and environmentally
responsible business practices be supported.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on the proposed
amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, Bill C-4. We are
addressing today the Group No. 4 amendments intended to give
farmers, the owners of the means of production, their land and
machinery, and who would like to be the owners of the produce, an
opportunity to control the only marketing organization available
to them, the Canadian Wheat Board.
The government would have us believe that every farmer in
western Canada is clamouring to get into the monopolistic
Canadian Wheat Board organization and that farmers are all
pleading for the Canadian Wheat Board to maintain total marketing
control. It would also have this House believe that farmers want
the federal government to maintain control of the wheat board
through the appointment of the president and four of the
directors.
Farmers have not been heard on the issue of farmer control.
1325
I would like to recount one farmer's story in this House so that
members will know how some farmers view this legislation. Mr.
Russ Torkelson from the Weyburn area has opted out in the only
way he can opt out. He no longer grows any Canadian Wheat Board
crops on his approximately 4,000 acre farm.
Why did Mr. Torkelson opt out of the Canadian What Board system?
He is unable to manage his risk and his risk is significant.
Nothing is known when a farmer puts a crop in the ground about
the price they are going to get under the wheat board system, but
they know all about the input costs. They range from $65 an acre
to $100 or $105 an acre. It averages out at about $80 an acre.
We can see what this means to a man who has 4,000 acres of
farmland. The cash cost of his input is $80 an acre. That does
not include the cost of machinery, buildings, taxes or
maintenance. What it does cover are simple things like seed,
fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and fuel.
When the wheat board was operating as it should 30 or 40 years
ago farmers did not need all the fertilizers they need now. The
nutrients in the land have been depleted and farmers have to put
it back in. It is an added input cost. It does not seem to have
its way to the Canadian Wheat Board that these things need to be
paid for, but the farmers are paying every time they put a crop
in the ground.
What does a farmer yield? About 20 to 25 bushels an acre. They
need a significant return on their investment. They cannot
afford to have uncertainties beyond the things they cannot
control, which ought not to include the price farmers get for
wheat. The uncertainties should be the weather and infestations
of pests and things of that nature. They certainly should not
have the unknown of the price they can expect to get. What other
business in Canada operates under those circumstances where a
person provides a good or a service and has no idea what he will
get in return? Farmers have precious little control over it in
that the government says who is going to be on the board.
What does Mr. Torkelson do when he grows his non-Canadian Wheat
Board crops, which include oats, canola, flax, lentils, canary
seed and things of that nature? By the way, those crops are
subject to be taken under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board
which will give him even less control over his costs.
How does he market his crops when the Canadian Wheat Board is
not involved? He spends his entire winter getting into the
markets in Chicago and Winnipeg. He is fully wired in. He is on
line. He spent the time from last fall when he took the crops off
until now locking in next year's crops. That is the way he
manages his risks.
Who knows what a wheat board which takes no risk is doing? If
the risk belongs to the farmer, he must be able to manage it
through an open and fully accountable board of directors. It
should not be a board of directors which is set up by the
government for the government.
When a farmer grows wheat he has no control over basis costs.
These are set by the grain commission and frequently they have no
basis in reality. What is a basis cost? It is the
transportation cost after delivery. The crops may not ever have
left the farm if the farmer is working with a buyback system, but
basis costs apply. That does not make sense to Mr. Torkelson.
Working outside the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Torkelson is able
to negotiate his own basis costs, which have been lower than
Canadian Wheat Board crop basis costs. This year on flax alone
his costs were one-tenth of those set by the Canadian Wheat
Board. The rest goes into his pocket until the government taxes
it back.
What else can he do outside the Canadian Wheat Board? He can
lock a price in with a broker from Winnipeg or Chicago
independently. There is a risk involved, but it is the owner's
risk. He takes the chance. He already took a risk putting the
crop in the ground. He is taking a risk selling it. It is his
land, his machinery, his crop, his choice, his risk.
He feels that if producers had control of the Canadian Wheat
Board, as proposed by the Reform Party, it could be an effective
selling agent for western farmers. However, as it is, he opts
out.
1330
Mr. Torkelson competes successfully in the North American grain
market, in a global marketplace really, because he is on line. As
it is, he and many other farmers feel that the Canadian Wheat
Board and the proposed amendments fit the government and not the
farmers whom the board is supposed to serve and benefit by
getting the best price, not orderly marketing, whatever that is.
These words are without much meaning, orderly marketing as
opposed to getting a good price. The board does not care how it
is sold but it is concerned about how much it can take to the
bank.
I call on the government to adopt these Group No. 4 amendments
under consideration here. Only then will farmers support the
board and willingly participate in Canadian Wheat Board
controlled crops.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, being a new member of Parliament, I have not had a whole
lot of opportunity to speak to the House to this point. In doing
so on these amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the
particular clauses dealing with the election and duty of
directors, I would like to mention that I have a vested interest
in this bill and a vested interest from a personal point of view,
along with the views of my constituents.
I am a cattle rancher from an area where there is a lot of grain
production. We are just north of Winnipeg. As a result, what I
talk about here today is very close to my heart as well as my
pocketbook, something which is really not the case for a lot of
other members in this House, particularly on the other side.
The farmers in our area definitely want to retain a wheat board.
However, they do not want to be forced to sell their products
solely to the Canadian Wheat Board. I have some suggestions that
I will come to in a moment as to how they should be treated and
the kind of board that we should be dealing with for western
Canadian farmers.
It is a little bit hard to debate the Canadian Wheat Board bill
today because the wheat board is currently being challenged in
the Winnipeg courts on constitutional grounds by, I believe, a
farmer named Mr. Dave Bryan, so the debate we are having here
today may well be pointless. If that court finds that it is
against the constitutional rights of farmers to be forced to sell
their grain there then, as I say, we will be talking about
nothing.
The crown attorney in charge of that case is a more junior crown
attorney whom I have known for some years. It is not a case
where they are putting in the top federal prosecutor.
Getting back to the election and duty of directors, I would like
to say that the purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board and its
directors is to ensure that this commercial entity maximizes
returns to producers. Here again we are talking dollars in the
pocketbook.
The minister for the Canadian Wheat Board and the backbenchers
on the other side of the House, a lot of whom are from Ontario,
certainly represent their farmers. I would like to point out to
the House that the roughly 1.3 million tonnes of wheat that they
produced last year did not go overseas. It went to the United
States and the Canadian milling industry. Why does anyone
suppose that is where it went?
I can show members Ontario farm magazines which will clearly
show that the reason the wheat does not go offshore is because
they get the best price in the United States and the best price
milling here in Canada. They do not want to be part of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
They do not want to be a director. They do not want to have any
duty to make sure the wheat board works well. Why do we have the
wheat board that we have today? That is the problem dealing with
these elections and duties of directors when in fact the wheat
board is not even serving western Canadians by maximizing their
profits.
1335
Farmers out our way, as I said, want to have a wheat board. But
what they really want is a wheat board along the line of these
new generation co-ops where the people and the farmers who are in
the organization, the wheat board, the co-ops or whatever we want
to call it, want to be there. Everybody in an organization who
wants to be there will make sure that organization works well and
maximizes profits.
The problem with the wheat board and the amendments being
brought forward today is we have a significant number of farmers
who do not want to be in the wheat board. We end up with these
massive legal arguments. I heard today about the half tonne
truck which has up to $135,000 or $150,000 worth of assessments
against it by Revenue Canada. This kind of wheat board and the
opposition to it is sapping the very strength out of and killing
the profits that the farmers are supposed to be making. That is
what should be dealt with here today. It is that very profit
making incentive.
Once again, the duty of the directors who are elected should be
strictly to maximize profits. I think western Canadians quite
clearly do not trust the federal government and Ontario, Quebec
and the other provinces telling us in Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba and a small portion of B.C. how we should run our
commercial operations, our farms and our ranches.
The directors that we would like to see elected from our
constituencies would be purely decided by western Canadians.
There would be no appointments from Ottawa, no dictates from on
high. We would end up with the provinces that I mentioned
previously deciding how to run the elections. They have a very
clear vested interest in the operation of a future wheat board.
That is the kind of elections we would like to see.
The duties of these directors would be dictated by the provinces
in the west that are producing the grain, not by Ottawa which has
other interests. I am sure that every bushel of grain in every
negotiation overseas is not based solely on “Oh, boy, I hope I
can get that farmer up in Selkirk the best dollar for this”.
There is no doubt that foreign interests come in. We have all
seen the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the weight he throws
around in Manitoba and in this government. That is one of the
big concerns of the farmers in western Canada. Decisions are not
made purely on a commercial basis.
I will not get into the secrecy of this because that is a debate
for another day, but I would like to mention oats. Oats used to
come under the Canadian Wheat Board. Many people have said “Is
there a disaster now that oats are no longer under the wheat
board?” I spoke to this very issue when I was travelling around
my constituency. When oats no longer came under the wheat board,
there was a short time frame when the marketing of oats was not
clear cut and profits maximized, but within a very few months the
marketing of oats was great and profits were maximized.
1340
They will not find anybody now growing oats begging to get back
into the Canadian Wheat Board. This is the very thing I am
talking about, the wheat board for the future. The wheat board
has to be run, controlled, directed by western Canadian farmers.
A lot of them want to have this marketing board. I assure
members of that. They want to maximize their profits.
The net income for farmers in Ontario and Quebec is much higher
than it is in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta. It shows that a
marketing board for the dairy industry, I guess that accounts for
the majority of the profits here, can be a very strong influence
on the net profits that farmers make and that is what we want in
western Canada.
The prairie provinces want to run the Canadian Wheat Board and
that is not happening with these amendments here today.
The elections will go ahead. We will end up with new directors
of the wheat board, but the duties that they will end up being
given will come from Ottawa. That is why this new wheat board,
with the amendments to it, will not work. It will not survive
more than a few years if they go through.
My earlier suggestions regarding the Canadian Wheat Board being
run by westerners and the sapping of strength by having it run
from Ottawa is that this membership composed of western farmers
will maximize profits.
Under this set-up, I would imagine that a wheat cartel would
arise where the rest of the world, Canadian millers and everybody
else, would have to pay the maximum price. There would be no
in-fighting.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this topic today. It
has a lot to do with the profits we will make in the west.
Please, give us a break.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to make a brief intervention into this debate
on the Canadian Wheat Board.
I listened carefully to the member from the Reform Party, a
member from my province. I want to ask what it is about the
Reform Party, what is the source of this great self-loathing that
they have with respect to Canada, that time and time again we see
them as an instrument of American and multinational corporate
power when it comes to so many different policy areas.
We saw the other week and we see it again with respect to the
wheat board. We saw it just last week with respect to the whole
question of bank mergers. What was the Reform Party solution to
the prospect of the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal merging—
The Deputy Speaker: Order please.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know what
the relevance of the Bank Act is to what we are debating today.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the Chair has been fairly
lenient in respect to the relevancy rules. We are discussing
Group No. 4 which I understand deals with governance and the
appointment of directors and so on of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona in his remarks
about the Bank Act was moving toward discussion of the
appointment of the directors of the Canada Wheat Board. I am
looking forward to his remarks in that regard.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that using
analogies and drawing parallels between one position and another
was out of order. I am glad that you have ruled it is not.
Going back to what I was saying, we see this consistency in the
position of the Reform Party with respect to any policy area that
has to do with the pre-eminence of Canadian public interest
against the rule that American corporate interests would like to
play in the Canadian economy, whether that is the role of
American banks that would like a larger foothold in the Canadian
economy or whether it is the role of American or other
multinational agribusiness corporations that would like a greater
foothold in the Canadian economy.
What is the response of the Reform Party in both cases? Fine
with us. We would just like to be able to sell them a little
wheat off-board for ostensibly a higher price forgetting the
lesson of many, many years, forgetting the fact that that is what
used to be the case. That is precisely because that did not work
that we came to establish the Canadian Wheat Board pools.
That is a history lesson. Oh, no, the Reform Party is bothered
again. One of its members is up on another point of order.
1345
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I beg that the Chair rule
on the relevance of this. We have just explained that 97% of
farmers are in favour of the amendment I put forward.
The member is not relevant. He is saying things that are
totally inappropriate and off topic.
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members may disagree with what
the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona is saying, but if the
Chair were to insist that the remarks of every member who is
speaking to Bill C-4—and this appears to be a fairly general
debate on Bill C-4, to the Chair—be relevant to the amendments
now before the House, I am afraid I would have been asking hon.
members to resume their seats for some time now.
I stress that we are debating Bill C-4. I think the hon. member
is discussing Bill C-4. While it may not be particularly
relevant to the amendment moved by the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville, there is a string of amendments in Group No. 4
and I assume we will hear in due course how the hon. member ties
into those.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of a saying
of a former prime minister of the House, John Diefenbaker. He
said that you can always tell when you throw a stone whether you
have hit anything or not because they start to yelp. We have
heard some yelping on the part of the Reform Party. It is
because perhaps at some deep psychic level Reformers are
uncomfortable with the way in which they continually re-emerge in
the Chamber as the defender of American corporate interests.
Speaking more specifically to the amendment which presumably
will make my colleagues in the Reform Party happier, I notice
with respect to the nature of the voting for the Canadian Wheat
Board that the Reform Party wants big farmers to have more votes
than smaller farmers.
This is interesting from a party that consistently makes the
argument with respect to Senate reform that all provinces should
be equal in the Senate. Whether it is Prince Edward Island or
Ontario, there should be an equality of say in the Senate.
What happens to this principle when it comes to farmers? What
happens to the sanctity of the view of small farmers when it
comes to the governance that the Reform Party would like to see
with respect to the wheat board? This principle seems to have
gone out the window altogether. Perhaps somebody could explain
that when they get up next.
Is this another way of telegraphing the way in which Reform
Party policy eventually merges with or coincides with the long
term interests of members of American agribusiness that no doubt
foresee the day or long for the day when there will not be any
small farmers and they will be able to buy up more and more of
our agriculture and more and more of our farms? If the Reform
Party had its way, not only would they have the power that comes
from ownership. They would have the power that comes from more
votes being allocated to larger enterprises with respect to how
the wheat board is governed.
Finally, just one more thing occurred to me as I have listened
to Reform Party members over the last little while talking about
rail line abandonment. We have to be careful what we ask for.
The railways are now operating according to profit. The railways
are now operating according to maximizing their profit in every
way, putting aside entirely the whole notion of service and what
is good for the community.
This is exactly the kind of commercial paradigm the Reform Party
and others have been asking the railways to operate on for the
last 20 years. Now they have it and they cannot stand it. Now
they have it and they are starting to sound like New Democrats
saying “Why don't they keep that line open? It is important to
the community. Why don't they keep this line open? It is
important to farmers”.
Why do they not do this or that? They are not doing it because
we have precisely the kind of railway transportation system in
the country Reformers pushed for and finally succeeded in
getting. It is their own fault.
1350
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-4 today. It is interesting to
hear my friend from Winnipeg speak. It is 1998 and the member is
still engaging in 1960s rhetoric, calling Reform Party members
tools of the capitalist pigs or imperialist dogs. He is engaging
in conspiracy theories about some collusion with multinationals
and transnationals. The more things change, the more they remain
the same.
I will discuss some specific items in the bill. I will also
address some of the issues my friend has raised.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: You had better stick to the amendment.
Mr. Monte Solberg: My friend says that I had better stick
to the amendment. I certainly will, unlike him.
My friend raised one issue that is addressed in the amendment.
He said, again in his conspiracy theory, that the Reform Party is
somehow engaged in an attack on small farmers. He said that one
of our amendments would somehow disenfranchise small farmers.
All it does is stand up for multigenerational farms. There are
situations where farmers and perhaps a son or a couple of sons
are on the farm. We want to ensure they all have a vote. Why
does the NDP insist on attacking family farms? What do NDPers
have against family farms?
All we are doing is ensuring that a hobby farmer, a lawyer in
the big city or maybe even an imperialist dog who may have a
little land in the country is unable to wipe out with one vote
the vote of a multigenerational family farm. That is what we are
standing up for. That is speaking to the amendments.
We wish to address a number of other items. We want to talk
about the amendment of the member for Prince George—Peace River
in northern B.C. The member proposes that we have a fully
elected membership on the Canadian Wheat Board. That makes
tremendous sense to me. I am surprised my NDP friends who are
allegedly great populists did not stand in support of the idea of
democracy in the Canadian Wheat Board. Do they not believe in
allowing farmers to control their very own institutions? It
makes tremendous sense to me. Not only does the NDP not want
that but the government does not want that.
Because of tremendous pressure the government is at the point
where it will consider allowing some directors to be elected, but
it will certainly not engender the possibility of the majority of
board members voting to open the board in any way. The
government will not only ensure that enough of those members are
appointed in the old standard way. It will also insist that the
president be appointed by the agriculture minister.
I come from a part of the country where we embrace free
enterprise principles. People there believe in the free market.
In every other area they say we should have the choice to market
our product the way we choose. We want the choice. Many people
say they want to retain the Canadian Wheat Board as a voluntary
organization.
A few minutes ago somebody spoke of the wheat board as a
co-operative. It is not a co-operative as it stands now. It is
a coercive. You have to belong to it. If you do not and you try
to market your grain without going through the board, you will
end up in shackles and leg irons like many Canadian farmers
already have. To me that is absolutely ridiculous. If we are
great believers in co-operatives, let us make the Canadian Wheat
Board truly a co-operative. Let us allow people to be a part of
it if they so choose.
We have a violation of the traditional natural rights to life,
liberty and property. When it comes to liberty and property in
this case, those fundamental natural rights are being abridged by
the government and the Canadian Wheat Board. People in the west
are upset about it.
1355
We have seen numerous court cases. We have seen all kinds of
protests. We have seen people breaking the law, committing acts
of civil disobedience because they have had it with a government
that is not permitting them to feed their families.
We have people who are looking across the border or considering
the price they could get for their grain if they were allowed to
market it themselves so they can feed their families. The
government is saying “No, you cannot do that” and is sending
those people to jail.
I cannot believe it. I am someone who comes from the west. I
do not have an interest in a farm but I have sat and watched from
the outside for a number of years. When I go around my riding,
which is in southern Alberta, overwhelming people want the choice
to belong to the board or not. Almost to a person, no matter
what side of the issue they are on, they are very concerned about
Bill C-4. They see it as a step backward.
I will speak to some other issues so that my friends in the NDP
do not get up and accuse me of not being relevant. One issue my
friend from Prince George—Peace River raised is really
important. It is a motion to require the president to take steps
to make the Canadian Wheat Board a signatory to the international
code of ethics for Canadian business.
By way of background, the government has initiated a code of
ethics. It has insisted that Canadian businesses that want to
deal abroad follow the code of ethics.
Does it insist that government agencies be signatories to the
code of ethics? No. Does it suggest that the Canadian Wheat
Board that markets billions of dollars worth of grain around the
world every year should be a signatory to the code of ethics? No.
We have the same old double standard. We have the government on
one side saying “do as I say and not as I do”. Farmers and
everybody else are expected to live up to a different standard.
If experience tells us anything, we know that Canadian business
people have higher ethical standards than the government. We
have seen that over and over again.
The government displays unusual effrontery this time. It is the
one that raises the issue. It is actually encouraging Canadian
business to do it but will not live up to it. I find that
unbelievable. I urge members to support Motion No. 16 in Group
No. 4.
I summarize by saying that Bill C-4 is a rear guard action.
Canadian farmers have made it very clear they will not tolerate
the current Canadian Wheat Board. They will not tolerate any
half measures. They want to see sweeping change. They want to
see a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board. They want to have their
natural rights restored, the rights to liberty and the rights to
property. Those natural rights precede laws that come from
government. We want to see them re-established.
I urge my friends in the House to consider very carefully the
arguments of the Reform Party and certainly those of Canadian
farmers who are willing in many cases to go to jail for them. I
encourage my friends to vote with the Reform Party in support of
the Reform amendments in Group No. 4.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
1998 OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada is seeing gold, Olympic gold.
I am proud to rise in the House today to congratulate the 153
Canadian athletes who make up our country's team to the 1998
Nagano Olympic Winter Games. I know all hon. members and
Canadians wish our athletes the very best.
It is of particular pleasure to rise in this place to
congratulate Canada's first medal recipient, Ross Rebagliati.
Rebagliati has not only won gold for Canada. He made Olympic
history and did so in a new sport, the snowboard slalom.
My sincerest congratulations to all the athletes who are
representing Canada with such grace and style and who epitomize
the values of excellence, dedication, discipline and fair play.
They are indeed great ambassadors of a great nation.
Good luck Team Canada, your country is behind you.
* * *
1400
ROSS REBAGLIATI
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, over the weekend at the Olympics in Nagano, 26 year
old Ross Rebagliati of Whistler, B.C. brought Canada's first gold
medal at the Olympics. Ross became the first ever winner of the
gold medal in snowboarding.
Ross' gold medal is more than a personal achievement and a
number in Canada's quest for gold. The gold medal victory
signifies the bond between Ross and his long time friend Geoff
“Lumpy” Leidel, who died last month in an avalanche in Kootenay
national park, and to whom Ross dedicated the medal.
This is more than a gold medal for Canada. It is a statement to
the indomitable spirit of Ross Rebagliati, the bond of a
friendship and should serve as an inspiration and reminder of
what the Olympics signify.
Ross, you are the personification of the Olympic spirit.
Congratulations.
* * *
MAHATMA GANDHI
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
50 years ago on January 30, 1948 the world lost a noble man, the
great souled or pre-eminent leader of Indian nationalism, Mahatma
Gandhi.
Gandhi was a political leader who clearly demonstrated, through
action, the concept of civil disobedience or passive resistance.
But Gandhi left a legacy in addition to the lessons of civil
disobedience through his articulation of seven social sins:
politics without principle, wealth without work, commerce without
morality, education without character, pleasure without
conscience, science without humanity, and worship without
sacrifice.
If we listen to the message Gandhi gave us, we in this House are
better prepared to serve this country and build a good society.
* * *
[Translation]
TOKAMAK PROJECT
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, several
months ago already, the Liberal government announced the projected
end of its contribution of $7.2 million to the Tokamak project in
Varennes.
Quebec is still recovering from the ice storm, which forced
many Quebeckers to use other much more polluting forms of energy,
such as wood and coal and gasoline for generators. The Government
of Ontario is being forced to shut down the Candu reactors, which
are considered unreliable after only 15 years in service.
The Government of Ontario is contemplating sending the province
back to the bygone days of coal fired generating stations, a step
in the other direction from the commitment Canada made at the Rio
and Kyoto conferences.
Nuclear fusion, the focus of the Tokamak project, is a clean
and safe alternative to such polluting sources of energy, which
continue to be funded to the tune of billions of dollars of public
money from the federal government. It is therefore difficult to
understand why the Liberal government insists on threatening the
future of the project. Its false economies reveal its
shortsightedness.
* * *
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
our nation's sovereignty is again being compromised by individual
negotiators, acting on the whim and direction of ministers, who
do not reflect the will and expectations of the people of this
nation.
Liberal government representatives state that the multilateral
agreement on investment, the MAI, will not affect sub-nationals,
which is bureaucratic talk for provinces, territories and their
jurisdictions.
The Minister for International Trade says this is true. In
fact, he disputes international consensus which says the MAI will
apply to Canadian provinces.
The minister supports a carve-out for financial institutions
such as the banks from the MAI but not for the environment. Is
foreign profit more important to this government than the
protection of Canada's environment?
Canada's environment will be at risk if the MAI opens the doors
for resource exploitation and it will be Canadians paying the
piper, not the minister.
We challenge the Liberal government to a full public debate on
the MAI to let Canadians decide how bad the MAI really is.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on a particularly important issue to both the
agricultural industry and international trade. The World Trade
Organization negotiations begin in 1999 and other countries have
already begun to chart their course with respect to their
agricultural sectors. Our current minister of agriculture has a
tendency to simply let lawyers defend the industry rather than
have his own ministry set policy for the future.
It is time for the government to start defending this
multibillion dollar industry. Is our government going to begin a
substantive plan on how our industry will fit internationally and
compete in the global agriculture and agri-food market? Unlike
the government's environmental initiative in Kyoto, we cannot
wait until the last minute.
Now is the time to begin a comprehensive consultative process
with both industry and consumers on how we should compete in both
the international and domestic markets. I urge the government to
start looking for such a plan.
* * *
1405
THE LATE MARK MACGUIGAN
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Mark MacGuigan, who died last month, was a professional
philosopher as well as a lawyer. His career moved quickly
through the different domains: university law teaching,
university administration, politics as a backbench MP for 12
years, then in the space of four more years, foreign minister and
justice minister, and finally judge of the appeals division of
the Federal Court of Canada.
He continued, through his long illness, his scholarly interests,
with a treatise on law and morality in 1994 and leaving two other
manuscripts, on foreign policy and the administration of justice,
partly completed upon his death.
His life represents the continuing attempt to reconcile a
natural law based set of ethical values with the practical
necessities of a rapidly evolving Canadian society.
* * *
HEART AWARENESS MONTH
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
February is heart awareness month. Cardiovascular disease
remains Canada's leading cause of death and one of the major
causes of disability. More than 79,000 Canadians die every year
from heart disease and stroke.
Besides the human toll of the disease, the cost to the economy
is considerable, about $20 billion per year and more than 6.5
million days of hospitalization.
[Translation]
We are making great progress in fighting cardiovascular
disease. Strokes and heart disease are caused by our lifestyle.
[English]
By eradicating smoking, promoting a healthy diet of physical
activity, we can help Canadians in preventing and/or postponing
the onset of this disease.
By investing in heart health, we can reduce significantly this
disease. By mobilizing society as a whole, we can enhance—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
our absentee senator from Mexico will stroll into Ottawa tomorrow
to make an appearance in the Senate so that he can continue to
collect his pay for another two years.
This particular senator has taken advantage of the Canadian
taxpayer for 31 years and now the government and the Senate have
made his life easier. He has been freed from his party
obligations and was recently relieved of his Ottawa office. Now
he does not even have a phone should his constituents try to get
a hold of him.
What kind of representation are Canadians receiving when
senators can live on the beaches of Mexico and show up once a
year or so only to qualify to collect their pay?
Now is the time to end this senator's siesta. The Prime
Minister must take responsibility and ask the senator from Mexico
to withdraw from the Senate so that Canadians can have legitimate
representation in the upper chamber.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA TRAIN PROJECT
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I urge
the House to give its support for the Canada Train national unity
project.
In August 1998, 250 young Canadians will begin a cross-country
tour to explore Canada. Delegates' responsibilities will include
taking part in public debates and forums, and performing community
services. Enriched by this experience, they will meet 25 days
later to discuss their vision of the country's future.
I would like to congratulate corporate and individual
sponsors, particularly the Students' Union of the University of
Alberta, on their vision and enthusiasm.
I urge young Canadians to take part in the Canada Train project.
[English]
I urge all members to support this project now, in its preparatory
stages, and in August when the Canada train passes through their
ridings. The initiatives of these young people are a reminder to
all of us—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laval East.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD POVERTY
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the statistics
on child poverty are increasingly conclusive.
Since 1989, the number of children living in poverty has
increased by 58%; the number of children living in families on
welfare has increased by 68%; the number of children living in
unaffordable housing has increased by 48%; and the number of
children whose family's net income is under $20,000 has increased
by 45%.
We are a long way from the House's unanimous resolution in
1989 to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. These
children are suffering and cannot even aspire to the strict minimum
needed to get off to a good start in life.
They are feeling the effects of the cuts made by the Liberal
government since it took office.
The Bloc Quebecois urges the federal government to give back
to the provinces the money it owes them, the money it used to
improve its accounting image and achieve a budget surplus.
Only the provinces are in a position to use this money—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The
member for Ottawa West—Nepean has the floor.
* * *
1410
[English]
CENTRAL EXPERIMENTAL FARM
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week the Secretary of State for Parks and the
minister of agriculture designated the Central Experimental Farm
in Ottawa as a national historical site.
This does not mean that the farm will be frozen in time. It
will continue to evolve as it has for 111 years but it will
evolve in a way that is consistent with the important
contribution it has made to agriculture in Canada and
internationally.
It will be a permanent visible reminder in the nation's capital
to all Canadians of the importance of agriculture to our economic
and social development.
The people of this region are proud of the nation's capital and
its national institutions. I know they will want to contribute
to and be part of planning the future of the Central Experimental
Farm, our newest national historical site.
* * *
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
left-wing groups like the NDP and the Council of Canadians have
been having a field day out west with a misinformation campaign
about the MAI. They lost the battle on free trade, so now they
want to make a bogeyman about liberalized investment.
I know where they are coming from but I wonder why this
government has allowed their fearmongering to go unchecked. I
challenge the Minister for International Trade to go out to B.C.
and deal with these many allegations surrounding the MAI.
If the government is going to be out there negotiating this
agreement, it needs to explain it to the people.
Investment is the lifeblood of economic development. Investment
leads to trade and trade leads to jobs for Canadians.
Canadian firms investing abroad need the protection that a rules
based investment agreement provides through national treatment.
Canadians deserve to know that a good agreement will be good for
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
SIXTY MINUTES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the weekend
we were subjected to an attack by an American network, CBS, in its
report on Quebec's language policies on Sixty Minutes
It is one thing to agree or disagree with Quebec's decisions
which are aimed at protecting and promoting the French language,
but it is quite another to show so much subjectivity in denouncing
bodies and regulations, the underlying principle of which is to
reaffirm the position of francophones within the vast expanse of
North America.
Contrary to what was said throughout that report, we do not
believe that Quebec wishes to be a francophone enclave within North
America, for the simple reason that it has, for decades, been
working in every possible way to promote the French language and
culture.
In a desire for objectivity, the people responsible for the
program should have shown the other side of the coin, giving a
complete picture of the collective efforts focussed on promoting
the French culture in America.
* * *
GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
speak out vigorously against the partisan remarks made by Quebec
Premier Lucien Bouchard this past weekend concerning the Canadian
government's assistance to disaster victims.
The Government of Quebec is going too far with its barefaced
statement that the federal government is attempting to stop it from
attaining its objective of eliminating the Quebec deficit, by
refusing to comply with Quebec's request that it assume the costs
incurred in getting the hydro-electric system up and running.
Once again, the federal government is being blamed for
Quebec's administrative shortcomings.
We must make it clear. Right from the start we have insisted
that assistance to the victims of this catastrophe go to families,
small businesses and communities, not to viable major public and
private corporations.
The Premier of Quebec even wants to make this into an issue in
the next election. Well, we are ready and waiting for him. Let
him go ahead, and we will not even have to say a word.
Go right ahead, Mr. Bouchard. The people in the affected
areas are ready and waiting for you. But take care, because
sometimes shots like that backfire.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all
too often there is a most important but ignored element of the
criminal justice system, the victim. All too often we hear the
plights of those individuals forgotten by the system that seeks
to obtain justice on their behalf. Strange but true.
While the Criminal Code contains provisions dealing with
victims, it is simply not enough.
While all provinces and both territories have provisions for
victim rights, it is still not enough. It is time for a
comprehensive study and action.
The federal government will soon conduct a wide ranging
consultation with Canadians in all parts of the country on the
issue of the victims in the criminal justice system.
I welcome the participation of all Canadians and especially
those residents from my riding of Erie—Lincoln at a series of
spring town hall meetings on this very important subject.
The final results of this consultation will be a report
containing committee findings and recommendations, after which I
will continue to press for the introduction of a comprehensive
victim bill of rights.
Canada and its victims of crimes are crying out for fair,
compassionate and sensitive redress. It is long overdue.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
IRAQ
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, throughout our history Canadians have shown that we are
willing to do whatever is necessary to protect ourselves and the
world from tyrants and terrorism. If Canadians were asked
whether we trust Saddam Hussein or whether we trust the U.S. and
the U.K., we will stand by our allies. But we still have some
serious questions for our Prime Minister.
When President Clinton called, did he make it clear exactly what
the objective of any military strike against Saddam Hussein would
be? Is it to take out Saddam Hussein's weapons factories, or is
it something bigger and broader?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I talked with President Clinton and earlier today I
talked with the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The goal that we
all have is to make sure that Saddam Hussein respects the
resolutions of the UN and stops the production of armaments like
biological weapons and so on that are extremely dangerous.
We have proof that they were producing and are still producing
them and we want to terminate this production. It is extremely
dangerous for countries around the world if we do not stop Saddam
Hussein with this production.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are possibly on the eve of a war. The leaders of the
nations of the world are taking positions. It seems to me that it
is time Canada's Prime Minister stood up to be counted and got
off the fence.
Will the Prime Minister go beyond vague comments and clearly
tell Canadians whether he is convinced that military action to
stop terrorism by Saddam Hussein is required?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, like everybody else, I am hoping that there will be a
diplomatic solution to the problem. As everybody knows, there
are a lot of people who are trying to persuade Saddam Hussein to
change his position. In order to have him change his position we
have to show with determination that if he does not change his
position we will be there to make sure that he stops the
production of this absolutely unacceptable armament he is
building at this time.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1991 when Canada decided to support military action
to halt aggression by Iraq against Kuwait, the House debated the
issue for three days, not just a few hours. It debated a motion
on a position put forward by the government reaffirming our
support of action by the United Nations followed by a vote.
Is tonight's debate merely window dressing, or will the
government put forward a real motion on a real position followed
by a vote?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we intend to have a debate, to have the views of the
House of Commons expressed on this subject.
The Leader of the Opposition has asked me to stand very firm on
a position at this time. At the same time I said to the House
that I want to have the views of the House of Commons before I
make my views known publicly.
To have a definitive resolution as the member is proposing at
this time would be giving a final opinion of the government
before listening to the opposition. If that is what you want, it
is not what you were asking for a few hours ago or last week.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister still has not given us an answer to the question. We
have been asking it now for two weeks.
We know the position of the President of the United States. We
know the position of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. We
know the position of Germany. We know all of these positions.
The Canadian people want to know what the Prime Minister's
position is. Why will the Prime Minister not tell us? Is he for
military action or is he against it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member had listened to me a minute ago, I
said that I hope that there will be a diplomatic solution. If
there is no diplomatic solution, we want to be ready to make sure
that Saddam Hussein respects the resolutions of the UN. That is a
very good position.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we all hope
that there could be a diplomatic solution and we wonder why
Canada was not involved in helping to get that diplomatic
solution. But now the position is it has gone beyond that and we
now need to know where the Prime Minister stands on military
action and that he take some leadership. That is what we are
asking for. Leadership.
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just stated a very clear position. We want to find a
diplomatic solution but this is already over for the hon. member.
When I talked yesterday with President Clinton and when I talked
this morning with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, they told
me that they still believe there is a possibility of a diplomatic
solution and that in order to achieve it, we must be ready to act
if Iraq does not accept that solution. That is exactly this
government's position which is the same as the position of the
President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great
Britain.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
historically, Canada has always taken a diplomatic approach to
resolving international crises. We need only recall Lester B.
Pearson's interventions during the Suez crisis, and the Canadian
army's numerous peace missions.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to urge his
principle allies to seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis in
Iraq?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is what I hope. I spoke with Mr. Blair, Mr. Clinton and Mr.
Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia. Everyone is hoping for a
diplomatic solution.
What we do not know, however, is whether or not Saddam Hussein
will agree to such a solution. We have reached the point where we
have to begin preparing a response to Saddam Hussein in the event
he rejects the diplomatic proposals now being put forward by Russia
and France.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in 1991, Canada took part in the Gulf war, under the control of the
United Nations.
If, unfortunately, all diplomatic efforts were to fail, does
the Prime Minister think that the ideal solution would be for any
military intervention to take place under the control of the United
Nations?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is desirable and it is what we are hoping for, except that the
situation is now as follows: Saddam Hussein is not observing the
commitments he made at the time of the ceasefire, and the military
intervention in 1991 was authorized by the United Nations.
Saddam Hussein signed a ceasefire agreement and now he is not
complying with it. We therefore have the authority to proceed,
under the 1991 resolution, which Saddam Hussein is not complying
with.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Russian president Boris Yeltsin believes that a military
strike in Iraq at this point could lead to a global conflict. His
remarks are troubling, especially because they come from a member
of the UN security council. Again this morning, upon arriving in
Rome for an official visit, the president of Russia reiterated his
support for a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis.
Before establishing its position in the matter, did the
Canadian government try to find out the position of the Russian
government, which continues to promote a negotiated solution to the
conflict?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I had discussions with Mr. Primakov,
the foreign minister of Russia, in which we discussed the issue
of Iraq extensively. At that time he expressed the need for a
diplomatic solution. The Prime Minister has said exactly the
same thing. It is the hope of all of us that we can find a
peaceful resolution to a very difficult situation. We will
continue to support those efforts and take our own initiatives to
try to promote the development of a means of reconciliation.
As the Prime Minister has said, the fact of the matter is that
for the past seven years Saddam Hussein has been refusing to
abide by the UN obligations he agreed to on the ceasefire in
1991. At some point you have to be able to say that—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the fact of the matter is that a number of Canada's allies do not
support a military intervention.
France, Italy and Belgium continue to oppose a military
solution to the conflict with Iraq. Did Canada, a member of the
OSCE, have discussions with these three countries, which all
continue to believe in a negotiated solution to the conflict?
1425
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are in constant contact with all the countries
involved. As we have made very clear, perhaps the most important
contact is to gain the views of members of Parliament from all
across Canada. That is the most important consultation. We
would like to have the co-operation of the opposition in doing
that.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians were alarmed this morning to hear the U.S. Secretary of
State announce Canadian support for use of substantial military
force against Iraq.
My question for the Prime Minister is, is that true? If so, why
this contempt of Parliament which has not yet debated this
serious matter? And if it is not true, will the Prime Minister
lodge an official protest with the U.S. government for its
misrepresentation of Canada's position?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our position is clear. I said to the President of the
United States yesterday as I said to the Prime Minister of Great
Britain this morning, that I do not want to give Canada's
commitment until I have sought the view of the House of Commons.
If Ms. Albright indicated that I said yes, it is misinformation.
I said that I had to consult the House and I want to do it today.
I hope you will not use procedures to prevent me from consulting
you. I want your views.
In passing, I informed the leader of the Labour Party in England
of the position of the NDP on this matter.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, most
countries are calling for more aggressive diplomacy, not
unilateral military aggression. Even General Norman Schwarzkopf
says bombing will not work. A better way to gain Iraqi
compliance with UN weapons inspections is to ease trade sanctions
which have already killed hundreds of thousands of innocent
people.
Why does Canada not lead the way as we did with land mines? Why
not intensify our efforts to work through the United Nations for
a multilateral diplomatic solution?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have spent weeks and months with Saddam Hussein
trying to achieve that solution. That is why the
Secretary-General of the United Nations is calling for respect of
the resolutions of the security council. We are doing everything
we can. However, there comes a time when we must say to Saddam
Hussein “Respect the obligation that you took in 1991 or else”.
We are getting ready to do the “or else”. When the times
comes we must be ready to do that.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, for more
than a week now my party has been calling for a proper debate to be
held in the House of Commons on the Iraq question, not a group
therapy session but a debate based on the known position of the
government and the information it is prepared to give to the House.
I want to know why the government has waited a whole week and
why the President of the United States is the one behind a debate
in the House and not the members of the Canadian Parliament, who
are entitled to the respect of this House and to an opportunity to
hear the government's position, not group therapy.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the last Parliament, we developed the habit of consulting
the House of Commons before making final decisions.
We know the leader of the Conservative Party was often away
from the House at that time, but we did develop that habit of
consulting the House of Common's opinion before adopting a
position.
If you want me to adopt a position and to commit the
government before consulting Parliament, fine, that will make
things easy for me. With all due respect, I am offering to consult
the opposition, yet it does not want to be consulted. Fine, just
say so and I will turn up with a position and then, when the
government has decided, you will vote for or against it. But I
thought you could contribute to the debate before a decision is
reached.
[English]
The Speaker: Once again, my colleagues, I would ask you
to please make your remarks to the Chair. Also, we should not
make any references to who is or who is not here.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister speaks about respect for the opposition and the
other parties. Basic respect would start by informing the House
of Commons and its members of what is happening and offering
briefings on what is happening.
The Americans are ready to offer briefings to members of this
House on what is happening. Our own government has not even done
that yet. Respect starts by explaining to this House what the
Canadian position is, not group therapy in the House of Commons.
1430
Would the prime minister have the decency of informing the House
today whether or not he told President Clinton that he prefers
actions under the auspices of the United Nations rather than
seeing the Americans act alone? Will he at least inform us of
that today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me say that the United Nations authorized action in
1991 against Saddam Hussein. After the attack, a ceasefire
agreement was drawn up which Saddam Hussein is not respecting. If
he does not respect the ceasefire agreement, it means we have the
authority to move.
What is the hon. member complaining about? We want to have a
debate but he does not want it. Last week he asked for a debate.
I asked for a debate tonight and he does not want one. He should
make up his mind. He is as confused as ever.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
twice last week the finance minister avoided answering a pretty
simple question so we will try again.
The finance minister knows that the 3% and 5% surtaxes were
introduced as temporary measures until the budget was balanced.
The budget is now balanced. When will the finance minister
eliminate the 3% and 5% surtaxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has made very clear on a number of
occasions its intention to reduce taxes. In fact, in previous
budgets we have reduced taxes and we will continue to do so over
subsequent budgets.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are asking him specifically about the 3% and 5% surtaxes. The
government has a contract with the people of Canada. The people
of Canada have fulfilled their end of the deal. They have
balanced the budget. They pay extraordinarily high taxes to
balance the budget.
My question is when will the finance minister fulfil his end of
the contract? When will he eliminate the 3% and 5% surtax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this government certainly does have a contract with the
Canadian people. It is called the social contract. It is there
to protect the social fabric of this nation.
The fact is that the NDP, in seeking to gut health care, in not
wanting to put enough money into research and development, in not
wanting to put enough money into education, is seeking to gut
equalization. What the Reform Party seeks to do is to break the
social contract.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the
recent ice storm, which seriously damaged Quebec's hydroelectric
system, an essential public service as everyone knows, the Prime
Minister always left the door open to possible compensation. Last
Friday, the President of the Treasury Board categorically refused
to pay such compensation.
My question is for the Prime Minister: How can the federal
government justify its refusal to compensate Quebec, when it
compensated Newfoundland and Manitoba in almost identical
situations under the same compensation clauses?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
true that Newfoundland received $1,750,000 in compensation in 1984,
but in a situation that was completely different from the one we
are now talking about.
In 1988, the directives indicated very clearly that there
would not be compensation for public utilities, and it is clear
that Hydro-Québec is a large company. It is a company that clearly
has the ability to raise money itself. It is a company that may
borrow, on international markets if need be, and it is a company
that will—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Témiscamingue has the floor.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is telling us that Hydro-Québec will be penalized for
being well run. This does not make sense.
The President of the Treasury Board said on Friday that Ottawa
was not an automated teller machine you could withdraw money from
whenever you wanted.
Does the minister realize that Quebeckers are
depositing $31 billion annually in his automated teller machine and
that they are entitled to expect to be treated properly and, above
all, fairly?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these
are reasons that are often given, but they do not stand up. Large
corporations such as Alcan and Bell Canada were not compensated,
nor will they be.
Since the 1988 directive, electric companies in Newfoundland
and Manitoba have not been compensated. Speaking of $29 billion,
the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois always forget to mention
that, while Quebec paid $29 billion in taxes in 1993-94, transfer
payments to that province in the same year were $41.9 billion. That
is where we really come up $12 billion short.
* * *
1435
[English]
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last week we
asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development how
a confidential letter written to her by Bruce Starlight could
have got into the hands of Chief Roy Whitney. She said she did
not know.
It turns out that Chief Roy Whitney is so connected to the
Liberals that the finance minister was a fund-raiser when he ran
as a candidate and the Prime Minister was a keynote speaker at
Whitney's nomination meeting in 1993.
My question is, do all well-connected Liberal insiders have
access to confidential and privileged information?
The Speaker: I am having a little trouble with the
question. I will rule the question in order, but it is quite
borderline. I will permit the hon. minister to answer.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when Chief
Roy Whitney ran as a Liberal candidate, the finance minister
hosted a fund-raiser for him, two Liberal senators were in
attendance, the Prime Minister was the keynote speaker at
Whitney's nomination meeting and spoke at length and in glowing
terms about his friend, Chief Roy Whitney.
Just last month Whitney accompanied the Prime Minister on a Team
Canada trade mission.
Is this why the Indian affairs minister does not want an RCMP
investigation? Is she afraid that it might lead to the door of
the Prime Minister's office?.
The Speaker: I rule that question out of order. If the
minister wants to answer it, she may.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the government ethics commissioner last week said, with respect to
Bill C-28: “Canada Steamship Lines has indicated clearly to me that
it has no intention of utilizing this provision”.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the minister
realize that this statement by the ethics commissioner clearly
confirms that Canada Steamship Lines, fully owned by the Minister
of Finance, could benefit from Bill C-28 if it so wished?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think I will answer this question, because they are trying to put
the Minister of Finance in a position of conflict of interest.
The minister has a large company, as everyone knows, which he
owns and founded. Its management is in the hands of a trustee as
the rules of Parliament require. The Minister of Finance has
assured this House, and I have assured myself, that the company
could at no time benefit from the decision made to attract
investment in Canada.
So, to ask the question as the member is doing is a bit
malicious, since the Minister of Finance has done nothing wrong.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
any malice there may be comes from having buried a page and a half
of amendments to legislation governing international shipping in a
bill 464 pages long. This is a malicious act on the part of the
Minister of Finance.
I have a supplementary. Would the minister not agree that, to
date, he has been unable to prove once and for all that there is no
conflict or at least the appearance of a conflict of interest
between the legislation he introduced in this House and his own
interests as a shipowner?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance did what was required of him when he became
the Minister of Finance. Everyone knew he owned Canada Steamship
Lines.
We discussed the matter at length with ethics commissioners to
be sure that he could be Minister of Finance and serve Canada well
and ensure that the very successful family firm he founded could
operate in the interest of other shareholders without affecting his
role as Minister of Finance of Canada. As such he has acted with
dignity and integrity.
* * *
[English]
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Indian
affairs minister has given excuse after excuse to justify the
scandal in her department. She has left the grassroots Indian
people feeling betrayed while she leaks their letters, ignoring
the cause for the letters in the first place.
1440
What steps has the minister taken to investigate the charges of
fraud and corruption against Chief Whitney as outlined in the
letter she received from Bruce Starlight?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing RCMP
investigation.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last week
the Deputy Prime Minister said that he would look into the
possibility of paying for Bruce Starlight's legal fees, seeing as
how the leaked letter was the basis upon which the civil suit was
launched.
Will the government pay for Bruce Starlight's legal fees?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not usual that the
department would intervene in a circumstance like this.
As I mentioned before in this House, which the Deputy Prime
Minister has made clear, the facts are that we have an
investigation in the department under way to follow the path
which that letter took in my department. We have reviewed the
process with the privacy commissioner, who has said that our
approach is reasonable. Until the investigation is complete,
there is no point in making a decision on this question.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
Quebeckers have been hit hard by the unilateral cuts in
transfers to the provinces resulting from the continual deficits of
the federal government in recent years. Social and health services
have been affected everywhere because the federal government
balanced its budget on the backs of the provinces.
Does the Minister of Finance intend to act on the request of
the Bloc Quebecois and pass anti-deficit legislation so that in the
future the provinces are no longer faced with the consequences of
federal deficits?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member's question is similar to proposals made by the Reform Party
and the Conservative Party a few years ago. My answer is the same.
All formulae contain an exemption for economic downturns and
catastrophes. These exemptions seen from a different angle always
represent a gigantic hole that essentially voids these sorts of
formulae. This is not our intention. We think it much more
important to be more transparent and have very clear objectives.
* * *
[English]
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
A report prepared for Human Resources Development Canada on an
18 month study into underground economic activity in the
construction industry was recently leaked to the media. When
will the minister officially release the report and what does he
plan to do to crack the abuse and the undermining of our social
programs as a result of the underground economy?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
We indeed developed a joint industry-government working group to
examine the issue of underground economic activity in the
construction industry. The report is the result of the working
group study. It contains a detailed description of where and how
underground activity takes place. It will be used by the working
group to create an action plan to reduce underground employment
activity in the construction industry.
Copies have been released to people interested, but I must say
that we do not want it to go beyond—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Delta—South Richmond.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in granting me an absolute discharge for participating
in a protest fishery, B.C. provincial court judge Howie Thomas
has served notice that the courts will not enforce the minister's
program of racially based commercial fisheries.
Judge Thomas was not making it up as he went along. He was
guided by recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.
In the face of last Friday's decision, will the government
abandon its policy of racially based commercial fisheries?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after an examination of the judge's
remarks when he convicted the hon. member and also the comments
surrounding the sentencing, the government has decided to proceed
with the aboriginal fishing strategy because it believes that the
regulations under which the strategy is based are entirely legal
and above board.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister not understand that if the courts
refuse to prosecute fishermen for participating in these
fisheries, and for defying his illegal fishery, that it is all
over for him? Does he not understand that without the support of
the courts chaos will reign?
How can the minister continue racially based commercial
fisheries in defiance of the courts?
1445
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is based on a
very curious premise.
He states that the courts prosecute. The courts do not
prosecute. They determine guilt or innocence, and in the case of
the hon. member they convicted him.
* * *
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It has
to do with the words the minister used on Friday, words like
“overwhelming endorsation and consensus”, to describe attitudes
toward the government's position on the MAI.
Does the minister not know that this is not true? Does he not
know that a growing and significant number of Canadians are very
concerned about the uncritical way in which the government is
approaching globalization?
Will the minister listen to those Canadians, withdraw from the
MAI negotiations and seek a global economy that works for people
and the environment instead of multinational corporations?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I said on Friday that there was an
overwhelming endorsation on the part of the parliamentary
committee, that is absolutely correct.
The general tenor of the committee was to continue our
negotiations at the table to obviously push, protect and promote
Canadian values and interests, which we are about to do.
I said many times we would sign the right deal at the right time
and not any deal any time. The Reform Party was on side. The
Conservative Party was on side. The Bloc Party was on side. The
only party that said cut and run was the NDP. That is not how we
build countries.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is not a question of cutting and running. It is a
question of how we are to shape globalization to serve
communities, to serve the environment, to protect workers and not
just to protect the rights of investors, which is what the MAI
does.
The minister referred to the WTO on Friday. Why does he not try
to do this at the WTO where developing countries will be at the
table and where people who have some idea of how investments
ought to be regulated in the public interest will be at the
table, instead of just industrialized countries which
unfortunately now seem to speak only for multinational
corporations?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have been
advocating.
The hon. member's party is against the bilateral route. It was
against the FTA. It was against NAFTA. It said that we had to
negotiate multilaterally. Now we have a multilateral deal on
investment and the hon. member says that is not good enough
either.
What is left for the NDP except building walls and barriers?
Clearly that is not in the interests of Canada.
We also said that it properly belongs eventually at the WTO
where we have rich and poor, north and south, black and white. We
have said that and we continue to say that.
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
United Nations and the United Nations Security Council are often
mentioned in connection with the Iraq crisis. I would like to ask
a question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Could the minister tell this House whether his government is
of the opinion that the resolutions adopted in the past concerning
the Iraq crisis legitimize military intervention in Iraq now?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a number of resolutions since 1991 have called into
account Iraq for a breach of the agreements made under the
ceasefire.
In particular cases the latest one was November last year when
security council again registered a breach or a violation of the
agreement, which could lead to a threat to our national security.
I believe that demonstrates there is an ongoing set of
developments and decisions by the United Nations that support the
need for strong action.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, if
I understand correctly, the United Nations Security Council still
has in hand the resolutions for military intervention. Any major
countries, therefore, that do not dare to speak up today are
indirectly supporting military intervention in Iraq.
Are the minister and his government going to ask the United
Nations Security Council to again make a decision on the Iraq
question, or is this government going to settle for the old
resolutions?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the present moment there are quite active
discussions about a proposed resolution that might be considered.
The whole point of having a resolution is to have one that will
be passed and agreed to, not one that provides further splits or
divisions. The initiation at the security council requires the
kind of active diplomacy the prime minister was talking about
that we support.
* * *
1450
BANKING
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my riding is
only one of many where Canadians are concerned about access to
basic bank services. Many Canadians share this concern whether
they live in rural Canada or downtown Toronto.
Could the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions ensure
all Canadians that they will continue to have access to basic
bank services?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate
the member for Essex for the leadership she showed in maintaining
and keeping open the only bank in Comber, Ontario.
Access to basic bank services in rural Newfoundland or downtown
Victoria is a priority of the government. To get better access
for low income Canadians I have written to the Canadian Bankers'
Association, insisting that only two pieces of ID will be
necessary to open a basic bank account regardless of past credit
history.
If any Canadians are denied basic bank services, we want to
know.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the leaks in the department of Indian affairs are
becoming so bad that it is starting to resemble the
Titanic.
The issue remains how is it that confidential letters to the
minister, letters that alleged corruption by Indian chiefs, were
leaked to the very chiefs in question. Today we are told that
apparently the minister has finally decided to act and has called
in the RCMP.
When did she call in members of the RCMP? What exactly are they
investigating? Are they investigating the leaks of the
department or Bruce Starlight's original allegation?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the opposition
prefers to deal in innuendo and allegations. Let me just get the
facts on the table again for the House.
First, it is absolutely inappropriate that Mr. Starlight's
letter found its way into the hands of Chief Whitney.
Second, that letter was not conveyed by me or by any officials
in my department.
Third, I am concerned that it may have come from my department
and therefore I have demanded an investigation to be done. I
reviewed the process with the privacy commissioner and he said
that this is a reasonable approach.
I think it is they who are like the Titanic and going
down.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
number of government appointments to the Immigration and Refugee
Board is rising considerably.
Between 1994 and 1996, the percentage of replacements had
soared to 75% under the Liberal government. According to the
auditor general's figures, it costs $92,000 to train a new board
member.
How can the minister justify that the average term of office
served by board members has dropped, under the Liberals, to only
two and a half years, at a cost to the public of approximately $15
million for the sole purpose of satisfying the government's desire
to appoint its friends to the board?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Longueuil does not
have accurate information. The government itself has appointed an
advisory committee independent of the minister and the government,
whose mandate it is to evaluate the competence of individuals
applying to become board members.
Since the committee was formed, the government has made no
appointments without the explicit recommendation of this committee.
As for the length of time served by new board members, it is well
known that the chairperson of the board herself requires new board
members—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
* * *
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister for International Trade talks about a
consensus on the MAI.
He should know that there certainly was no consensus at the
health committee about the ability of government to protect
medicare from the commercial forces of the MAI. In fact he
should know there is a growing consensus in Canada that the
government should kill the MAI before the MAI kills medicare.
For the sake of medicare alone, would the international trade
minister reconsider his attachment to the MAI?
1455
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously there are concerns about any
deal any government thinks of getting into, but licence should
not be given irresponsibly to manipulate those concerns, to
manipulate those anxieties and somehow to say that the MAI will
to result in the sale of Canada. That is exactly the kinds of
things that have been coming from the member's party.
The replication of the investment chapter in NAFTA is
essentially the guiding principles. Since we have signed NAFTA
the health care system has not—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.
* * *
IRAQ
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
last week the Minister of National Defence said it was premature
to discuss Canada's state of readiness.
Suddenly, less than a week later, the minister felt confident
enough, and before checking with parliament, to tell the prime
minister to commit Canadian troops and equipment to a U.S. led
military strike on Iraq.
What information does the minister have today on our state of
readiness that was not available just last week?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1994 the defence white paper said we
should have multipurpose combat capable forces and we do.
Whether or not they are to be deployed in this case is a
decision the government has to make. As the prime minister has
clearly indicated, before we make that decision we would welcome
the input of members of the opposition, if they would only allow
an opportunity for debate in the House.
* * *
DAY CARE
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
At the business women's trade mission to Washington last fall
Canadian women stated that one of the largest impediments to
women entrepreneurs is child care costs.
Is the minister prepared at least to consider making child care
expenses deductible as costs incurred for the purpose of
providing income?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is important to recognize that the child care expense
deduction recognizes the cost of child care for all families
where both parents are working regardless of the circumstances of
their employment. This is a very important issue of equity.
That being said, I have had occasion both in Vancouver and
Toronto to meet with a number of the women who were on this trade
mission, women entrepreneurs. They raised a series of very
important points and we will give them every consideration.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on Friday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refused to turn
over foreign observer reports. He claims he does not want to
break the law when there is absolutely no law that prevents him
from turning over those reports.
Why is he covering up for foreign vessels, for nations, while
they are decimating our stocks? We are demanding the minister
release these reports now. When do we get them?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that I offered
these reports to members of the committee last week. In addition
we have provided all the information they contain in its
aggregated form to the committee and to the House. The
information he is requesting has been made available.
The actual observers reports, which section 20 of the Freedom of
Information act prevents me by law from releasing, are available
to them in camera, so they have whatever they need.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANS-QUEBEC AND MARITIMES GAS PIPELINE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a $50 million contract has been awarded
to the Texan firm Saw Pipes USA and the Japanese firm Kawasaki to
supply the steel required for construction of a 225-kilometre long
underwater natural gas pipeline in Canada. The bulk of Canadian
spinoffs from this project were related to this contract.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources admit that the federal
government decision to authorize the Mobil Oil project without
allowing an assessment of the Canadian backed trans-Quebec and
maritimes project will have disastrous economic consequences on job
creation?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the contract to which the hon. gentleman refers is one
that was discussed amply with potential Canadian suppliers. It
turned out, following those discussions, that there was not a
supplier in Canada that was in a position to provide the material
up to the necessary specifications.
On the general point about whether or not the Sable offshore
projects will be an advantage to Canada, that was reviewed by an
independent panel which concluded undoubtedly that the project
would carry major benefits for the Atlantic region and for the
entire country.
* * *
1500
INVESTMENT
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what
promises can this government offer to aboriginal people that the
multilateral agreement on investment will not give huge
multinational corporations like Daishowa and others a very big
say in determining aboriginal people's access to natural
resources such as fish and forestry?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this act keeps getting worse on the far
end. Whether or not we sign the MAI in April and whether or not
it goes to the WTO does not mean the Government of Canada or any
other participant will stop regulating and legislating on behalf
of their interests and the values that gives rise to and define
Canada.
We have given every assurance that we will only sign an MAI that
is right for Canada and the global community. Nothing less is
good enough.
The Speaker: Colleagues, that would bring to a close our
question period for today.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during question period you called our member for Skeena out of
order on a particular question. I reviewed the question a number
of times during question period. I refer to the annotated
Standing Orders which state:
When a decision on a question of order is reached, however, the
Speaker must justify it through a statement in which he or she
explains which Standing Order or authority is being applied to
the case. Once the Speaker has done this, the matter is no longer
open to debate or discussion and—
The Speaker: I refer the member to 409(7).
We will now proceed to tributes to a former Clerk of this House,
the Hon. Bev Koester.
* * *
THE LATE CHARLES BEVERLEY KOESTER
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we learned last week of the
sudden passing of Dr. C. Beverley Koester, the former Clerk of
the House of Commons. I wish to say a few words of tribute to
him.
Dr. Koester was born in Regina in 1926 and was educated at Royal
Roads Military College, the University of Saskatchewan and the
University of Alberta. He served in the Royal Canadian Navy and
the RCN Reserve and retired with the rank of Lieutenant
Commander.
After a period of teaching history, he joined the staff of the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan where he served as Clerk
from 1960 to 1969 when he joined the faculty of the University of
Regina.
[Translation]
He was the head of the university's history department when
the government of the day invited him to become Clerk Assistant of
the House of Commons. He was promoted in 1979 to Clerk of the
House, thus becoming my boss. He held that position until 1986,
and I must say that I, and all of the House of Commons staff, I
believe, found him to be an excellent boss.
1505
[English]
Dr. Koester brought to the table the knowledge and wisdom of a
scholar while at the same time providing the House his own
determined leadership in modernizing our administration.
I had the good fortune both to serve as part of that
administration when he was here and later to be a member of the
House of Commons during the latter part of his tenure as Clerk.
In both capacities I was able to appreciate his sagacity and his
foresightedness. It was a mark of his accomplishment that when
he retired he was succeeded for the first time by a career House
of Commons servant.
On behalf of the members of the government, and dare I say as a
former staffer, the employees of the House of Commons, I wish to
express my sincere sympathies to Dr. Koester's wife and children
on the passing of a truly fine man.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I stand in the House today to pay tribute to Charles Beverley
Koester.
For more than four decades Charles Beverley Koester served
Canadians in many different capacities. He began his career in
the Royal Canadian Navy and served overseas during World War II.
Bev then moved on to become Clerk in the Saskatchewan Legislative
Assembly. After obtaining his doctorate in history he spent
several years teaching in his hometown at the University of
Regina. In 1980, Dr. Koester moved to Ottawa to become Clerk of
the House of Commons.
Although I did not have the privilege of knowing him personally,
I understand from many people his skills and abilities were most
remarkable. He served the Speakers and members of this House
with dedication and wisdom.
Today my colleagues in the Reform Party join with our colleagues
in all parties to salute a remarkable Canadian who served his
country so well. We also pass along our sincere regrets to his
wife, Carolyn, and his children, Elizabeth, Charles, Christopher,
James and Kate, his grandchildren and his many friends across
Canada.
I am sure Bev Koester will be sorrowfully missed.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to give tribute to Charles
Beverley Koester, a former Clerk of the House of Commons, who
passed away recently at the age of 72.
Born in Regina in 1926, Mr. Koester graduated from the Royal
Canadian Naval College in Victoria in 1944. He then took up duties
in Scotland, and in 1945 was involved in the liberation of Oslo and
Copenhagen. He was to remain in naval service until 1960.
In 1960, he began his career in the service of parliamentary
institutions. After serving as the Clerk of the Saskatchewan
legislature from 1960 to 1969, he retired to teach history at the
University of Regina until 1975.
In 1980 he became Clerk of the House of Commons, a position he held
until 1987. Over that period, he was to serve under seven Speakers
of the House of Commons.
A number of colleagues here in this House had the opportunity
and privilege of knowing Mr. Koester and working with him. I
believe I speak for them in saying that this institution has just
lost a great man. On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois, therefore, I would like to express our sincere
condolences to his family and friends.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
at the end of an obituary for the late Bev Koester, there is a
quote from Alfred, Lord Tennyson, and it goes like this “and may
there be no moaning of the bar when I put out to sea.”
I want to say to the family of Mr. Koester that we are not here
to violate this instruction, to moan at the bar. We are here to
pay tribute to someone who served this House of Commons very well
in the time that he was here.
I certainly remember the days when Mr. Koester sat at the table
as Clerk. He swore me in a couple of times. He served this
House well. He had a distinguished career in the navy, in
academia, in this House and in the Saskatchewan legislature.
I note that he was the Clerk of the House of Commons and a Clerk
of the Saskatchewan legislature at very interesting times, having
been the Clerk of the Saskatchewan legislature during the great
debate about medicare and the Clerk in this House during the bell
ringings and various other goings on that occurred around the
patriation of the constitution in the early 1980s.
1510
He will be missed. My NDP colleagues and I extend our sincere
condolences to his family.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, as the House notes the death of Dr. Charles Beverley
Koester, the former Clerk of the House of Commons, the members of
the Progressive Conservative Party caucus would like to join in
offering our sympathy to Mrs. Koester, her children and
grandchildren as well.
Dr. Koester's service to this House is well known. In addition
to his parliamentary career he was also a scholar and biographer.
He wrote a biography of the Conservative MP Nicholas Flood Davin.
In that biography Dr. Koester summed up the life of Mr. Davin
and, in doing so, offered these eloquent words which apply
equally to him:
—he contributed his talents to the issues of the day; —he lent
his energy, his eloquence, his wisdom, and his experience to the
noble task of government; —and he sought, through parliament, to
build —[knowing that] parliamentary government depends as much
upon the institution as the individual.
The House of Commons gained much from Dr. Koester's tenure here.
Parliament has lost a friend and the country a great man.
The Speaker: My colleagues, in your name I would permit
myself a few words about Dr. Koester, the Clerk of the House of
Commons of Canada.
I was a member of Parliament during a few of the years when he
sat here at this table. On more than one occasion I had reason
to approach the Table to get information. I found that Bev
Koester was unfailingly a professional. He took time to listen
to the ordinary backbencher, if you will, and to guide us along
in the ways of the House.
That he was a scholar goes without saying. I would not want to
compare him to all of the clerks, but I would say that of the
clerks who I had the pleasure of serving with in the House of
Commons, he was one of the best read that I have ever known.
He was highly respected in the Commonwealth. As recently as a
month ago, when I met with the Speakers of the Commonwealth, I
was asked about Dr. Koester and his spouse. At the time, of
course, my answer was that he seemed to be doing quite well.
He served this House and he served us, as parliamentarians, very
well. He will be missed by this community of Parliament, by his
fellow brother and sister clerks, not only here in this House but
across Canada because he made himself available to the other
clerks in the other houses, he himself having come out of the
Saskatchewan House.
In your name, to his family, to his grandchildren, and to all of
those who have so much to be proud of because of the way he
served us, he will be missed. He was and he is appreciated by
those of us who had the great honour of serving with him in this
House of Commons.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 21st report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
and associate membership of the Standing Joint Committee on the
Scrutiny of Regulations.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 21st report later this day.
* * *
1515
MIDDLE EAST
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
56(1), I move:
That on Monday, February 9, 1998 at the ordinary time of
adjournment, proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall not
be taken up, but at that time, a motion to adjourn shall be
deemed to have been proposed and the said motion shall be debated
under the following conditions:
1. Members wishing to speak shall address the question of the
invitation to Canada by the United States of America to
participate in possible military actions in the Middle East;
2. No member shall speak for more than 20 minutes, with no
period being allotted for questions and comments, and two members
may share one 20-minute period;
3. No dilatory motions or quorum calls shall be received.
4. When no member rises to speak, the motion shall be deemed to
have been adopted.
The Speaker: Will those members who object to the motion
please rise in their places.
And fewer than 25 members having risen:
The Speaker: Fewer than 25 members having risen, the
motion is adopted.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
clarification first before I introduce a request for unanimous
consent to move a motion.
I wonder if the government House leader would clarify to the
House whether or not during this discussion tonight there will be
a motion put forward on action as far as where the government is
going, and whether or not we will be able to vote on that at some
point.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the only motion before the
House is the one that I have just proposed. If the hon. member
wants to have private discussions later with me, I am sure we can
meet later this afternoon. That is the only motion before the
House at this time.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to consider the emergency debate
tonight as a normal proceeding on a government order and that the
motion under consideration at that time be as follows:
That this House support diplomatic, and if necessary, military
action by our allies to stop terrorism and the production of
weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.
1520
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 21st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to
the House earlier this day be concurred in.
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have
the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a
petition to the House of Commons regarding the abolition of
nuclear weapons. I was specifically requested by my constituent,
Mr. Mark Frank, to table this petition. It asks that Parliament
support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000
of an international convention that will set out a binding
timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the family of Reena Virk who was brutally
murdered in my riding, I would like to present a petition with
over 1,500 names of people from Victoria and elsewhere in British
Columbia. They demand that the government put forth drastic
changes to the Young Offenders Act. They believe youth violence
is an increasing problem in our society and that crimes such as
murder should be taken to adult court. I can certainly commend
the family of Reena that wants to make some good of the senseless
tragedy of her death.
LAND MINES
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by the staff and students
of Strawberry Vale Elementary School in Victoria. Students
Chantelle Johnston, Xana Antonissen and Jenna Galegor have shown
leadership in asking that the production and use of land mines be
banned. The petitioners request that Parliament enact
legislation to ban the production and use of land mines from this
date and forever. I am sure they are very happy that Parliament
has chosen to do just that.
EQUAL PAY
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to
present a petition on behalf of several dozen residents of
Winnipeg, some of whom are in my riding.
The petitioners would like to remind this House that legislation
for equal pay for work of equal value was passed in Canada 12
years ago and that the Canadian Human Rights Commission agreed
that the findings of an independent inquiry were reasonable and
correct.
The petitioners request that this legislation take effect
immediately and that the appropriate government workers be
reimbursed at the rates recommended.
PUBLIC NUDITY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present to the
House a petition from 60,000 petitioners with respect to the
toplessness issue in the province of Ontario.
The Ontario court of appeal in December 1996 ruled that the
nudity provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada were contrary to
the charter of rights and freedoms. It is clear that the
overwhelming majority of people in Ontario and across the country
do not agree with the court of appeal's decision. It is the role
of this Parliament to enact laws with respect to the Criminal
Code. It is not within the domain of the court of appeal of the
province of Ontario or any other court of appeal.
These petitions were gathered by an organization based in my
riding called Keep Tops On, KTO. Those responsible for the
petition, Carol Faraone, Cathy Francavilla, Roxanne James and
Erica Kubassek, are present in the gallery today. The names of
these 60,000 petitioners are in addition to the names of 40,000
petitioners submitted to the House a number of weeks ago and the
petition drive is continuing.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to enact
legislation to amend the Criminal Code, specifically sections 173
and 174, the indecent act and public nudity provisions, to
clearly state that a woman exposing her breasts in a public place
is an indecent act.
1525
CRTC
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege to table three petitions today.
One is from the riding of Windsor—St. Clair and asks the
Government of Canada to review the mandate of the CRTC with
respect to the licensing of religious broadcasters.
MANICKAVASAGAM SURESH
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is primarily from the riding of
Windsor West and asks Parliament to ensure that a gentleman by
the name of Mr. Suresh not be deported and requests his immediate
release.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the third is also from the riding of Windsor West and
requests that Parliament adopt an official pledge of allegiance
to the Canadian flag after consulting with Canadians on its
wording.
PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am privileged to rise today to
present a petition on behalf of the electors of Erie—Lincoln.
Noting that there is an increasing number of Canadians who can
no longer tolerate the degrading effects of obscenity, and noting
further that pornography is not acceptable in our communities,
the petitioners request that Parliament legislate stricter
guidelines concerning the rating, distribution and display of
pornographic materials.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION FUND
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure to present a petition signed by a number of
Canadians, including some from my own riding of Mississauga
South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that police officers and firefighters are required to place their
lives at risk on a daily basis as they discharge their duties,
and that the employment benefits of police officers and
firefighters often provide insufficient compensation to families
of those killed while on duty. The public also mourns the loss
of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty
and wish to support in a tangible way the surviving families in
their time of need.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
establish a fund known as the public safety officers compensation
fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers killed
in the line of duty.
PUBLIC NUDITY
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 100
constituents. They draw to the attention of Parliament that
incidents of explicit nudity harm the public, specifically
children. They call upon Parliament to enact legislation to
amend the Criminal Code, specifically sections 173 and 174, to
clarify that a woman exposing her breasts in public is an
indecent act.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 45 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. Mark Assad:
With respect to the Canadian International Development Agency's
immunization program. (a) did CIDA terminate the program in
September 1997? (b) if so, is Canada monitoring developments in
rates of vaccination coverage in countries no longer served by
the program? (c) how many children is it estimated will not
receive vaccination coverage next year because the program has
been terminated? and (d) what statistically, is the mortality
rate among children from diseases that can be prevented by
vaccination?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Canada's
international immunization program CIIP, administered by the
Canadian Public Health Association, ended after a decade in 1997
as planned, having achieved its objectives.
This being said, CIDA has not ceased its immunization
activities. In the summer of 1996 even before CIIP was phased
out, CIDA began co-operating with the World Health Organization,
WHO, to consolidate efforts to eradicate polio in francophone
Africa.
As a result of consultations with WHO, CIDA is now working to
develop an added contribution to immunization in Africa, designed
to boost the effort to eradicate polio, eliminate measles and
generally strengthen immunization programs.
Current immunization programs save the lives of more than three
million children each year, but much more remains to be done. In
Africa, for example, we could save the lives of about 500,000
children if they were immunized against measles, one of the six
diseases targeted by current immunization programs.
Immunization programs are among the most cost-effective public
health activities. For this reason, Canada will continue to
contribute to the success of immunization programs around the
world. Over 80% of the world's children have already been
immunized, a rate not anticipated even 20 years ago. The
eradication of polio and the elimination of measles are in sight.
Rest assured that CIDA will maintain its effort and its support
for the poorest countries.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, before we grant leave for all questions to stand, I
would like to raise a point of order and ask the parliamentary
secretary a question that I have asked in the past and that I am
still curious about.
When will I be able to get an answer to a question that I tabled
on September 23?
I had mentioned this issue on December 3, well after the 45 day
allotment when we should normally expect a reply. It is now
February 9, more than 100 sitting days after the time the
question was tabled. I would like to get some clarification from
the parliamentary secretary about this delay. The matter was
very serious. It asked about the plans that the government and
the Minister of Health have for expending $50 million on
education and other programs to reduce youth smoking.
I am seeking clarification on this urgent issue. We need the
information.
1530
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I do apologize to the
member because, as she said, she did approach me before about it.
I will consult with her in a moment and I will certainly look
into this matter.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, an act to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and
of Motions Nos. 4 to 19.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise today to talk about report stage of Bill
C-4, the Canadian Wheat Board bill.
I suppose members opposite may wonder why a member of Parliament
from the west coast, an area not covered by the Canadian Wheat
Board, would want to come forward and speak, and I hope speak
very forcefully, about Bill C-4 and the amendments proposed by
the Reform Party to try to fix a very flawed piece of
legislation.
I guess I could categorize them in different ways but let me
start by saying this. Bill C-4 ignores too many farmers in this
country. I have mostly dairy and chicken farmers in my riding
but they are farmers nonetheless and when they speak up and speak
forcefully I hope that the members of Parliament would listen.
The sad fact is I think one of the reasons Bill C-4 is being
rammed through in an unamended form is there are virtually no
rural prairie farmers represented on the Liberal side of the
House. If ignorance is bliss then they are the happiest people in
Canada right now because they represent not the Canadian farmers
but maybe the bureaucrats who sent them here.
Here are the kinds of quotes from various papers from across the
country that go with this bill. This is one quote. Here is what
farmers are supposed to do to market their grain: deliver grain
to the board specified elevator, sell it, buy it back, turn
around, truck it all the way back to his own mill for processing
and then get a wheat board export permit before shipping abroad.
That's enough to promote entrepreneurship. No one can do that
because no one can afford to do that. This is a quote from the
Globe and Mail. What does the Globe know? It is a Toronto
paper so let us pretend it does not exist.
How about an Edmonton paper? It is talking about the case of
Clay Desrochers who is 24 years old. I would think he is a very
cynical Canadian at this point because he just spent a bunch of
time in a Manitoba jail. The article reads that if he had sold a
similar amount of cannabis to a school child, he would have
received about the same time in jail as selling less than $1,000
of wheat across the border.
As it states in the article, the reason this is such an affront
to the government is Mr. Desrochers had the gall to commit a
crime, according to the minister of the wheat board, against the
Government of Canada.
The article goes on to state Desrochers is the third Manitoba
farmer to be sent to jail since 1996 for what Communist countries
used to call economic crimes such as butchering a hog without a
permit or selling a cabbage on the black market. Shame.
Imagine a farmer who grows something. Imagine, a farmer buys a
piece of land with his own money. He buys the seed, the
fertilizer and the equipment with his own money. He takes the
risk. He looks at the weather and all things considered. He is
like the little red hen. He plants the seeds and takes all the
risks. There are no risks associated with the Canadian
government, Canadian taxpayers or any other Canadian farmer. The
wheat grows. He fertilizes it, cares for it and sprays it. He
does all the work. He harvests that wheat and what happens? The
government says that is not his wheat. He does not have the
right to do as he sees fit with that wheat. That wheat is under
the control of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Here is another article from the prairies again. Having federal
agents spy on ordinary citizens using tax audits to harass
opponents, predawn police raids, arbitrary arrests, property
seizures, no doubt an enemies list or two.
What am I describing, the Nixon White House, Brezhnev's Kremlin?
No, federal Liberal agriculture policy. That is what is wrong
with this bill.
1535
Why does this bill not place the onus on the board of directors
of the Canadian Wheat Board to put the interest of farmers first?
It does not do that. The way this bill reads is that the wheat
board's judiciary responsibility is not to the farmers, it is to
the board. I have to admit I am stealing this idea from an hon.
member of mine who spoke earlier. Imagine if we had changed the
system a little bit and we were not talking about farmers.
Imagine if we had a board for the lawyers. I am not talking
about the Canadian Bar Association. I am talking about a board
that all lawyers must belong to, the lawyers board. The lawyers
board is controlled by the government. It appoints the CEO of
this board. It will not let the lawyers do it because, after
all, who do the lawyers think they are? To sell their services,
the lawyers must first come to the board and say “can I sell my
services through you to this agency?”
The government may or may not, but regardless the lawyers are
cannot hold the board accountable for its actions or cannot sue
the board for improper actions because the board is only
responsible to the minister of lawyers. It is kind of like the
minister of silly walks.
If lawyers want to go outside the board to sell their services,
they are charged with breaking the law and they could be thrown
in jail. So lawyers have no choice about how they sell their
services and no choice on how they market them. They cannot go
out and market them freely in the town they live in or
internationally. They cannot take on clients from around the
world or from anywhere. The fortunes and existence of the
lawyers depend on the goodwill and graces of the board.
How many people think that would be a good idea? Maybe I should
not have used lawyers as an example because there are a lot of
people who would like to do lots of unspeakable things to
lawyers. That aside, how many people would put up with that kind
of control by the federal government? Not many.
I would like to give a personal example from where I come from,
the Fraser Valley. There are a lot of farmers but not a lot of
wheat farmers. A few short years ago a farmer, a friend of mine,
was growing wheat in the Fraser Valley. He was quite an
innovative farmer and risk taker. He was going into unchartered
territory by growing wheat in the Fraser Valley. He did a good
job. He raised a fine quality wheat. He harvested it during one
of our infrequent sunny spells and he came off in good shape. He
sold it to an Armstrong bakery and made a good dollar.
He could not handle the land costs in the Fraser Valley for this
type of farming so he and his family picked up stakes and they
moved to better farming country. Where did they go? They did
not go to the prairies. They did not go to the Peace River. He
would only go as far as McBride. He left my riding and he moved
to McBride. He went to McBride for two reasons.
One is it has three or more frost free days than the Peace
River. Second, if he went past McBride he had to sell to the
Canadian Wheat Board. He could not supply at $2 or $3 a bushel
bonus and he could not sell to the bakery in Armstrong. If he
had gone a few miles further the Canadian Wheat Board would have
come down and said “You have a little niche market and you are
making a profit. You cannot do that. You have to sell to us and
we will sell your wheat at $3 or $4 a bushel less than what you
can do it for yourself”. So he would only go to McBride. That
is where he lives today making a good living, being an
innovative, hardworking, risk taking farmer. But he is only
willing to go that far because, like he says, to go further is to
embrace government monopoly and government control of the worst
kind.
They gave up on that kind of control in most of the east block
countries. They gave it up when they gave up on communism.
1540
In this country for some reason it is okay to have the farmers
told what to do, when to do it, how much they are going to get
and if anything goes wrong, the board is not accountable because
it does not have any responsibility to the farmers themselves.
These amendments today would make the board more accountable.
They would put the responsibility on it to be accountable to the
farmers, get the best price for them and do the job for the
farmers themselves. It would give them choice. That is what
these amendments would do. I just hope that the government will
support them when the time comes for a vote.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a privilege to stand in the House today to speak on behalf of
numerous farmers I have talked to in the constituency of
Wanuskewin. I learn a lot from them.
I am not a farmer per se, although I have had the opportunity in
younger years as a teenager to work on several farms in the Quill
Lake, Saskatchewan area during seeding, harvest time and
throughout the summer picking rocks and roots and all that kind
of stuff.
It is a privilege to speak on behalf of numerous farmers who I
have had conversations with in the last number of weeks. I also
have the privilege of having a number of colleagues who, for
their livelihood, have depended directly on growing grain and
harvesting their wheat, contrary to the greater percentage of
those who have spoken on the opposite side of the House who do
not know directly and who have not been involved directly in this
very thing that we discussed before us today.
Off the top I want to mention or make public on the record the
Reform Party position, economic reform, agriculture policy, where
Reform is on the record in our materials as allowing producers to
make their own marketing decisions and to direct, structure and
to voluntarily participate in producer organizations, including
marketing boards, commissions and co-operatives in a manner they
believe best serves their interests.
I think that last part is very important. It has been
emphasized several times already today, serving their interests,
the interests of farmers, those who grow this stuff, who work
hard by the sweat of their brow. They raise this, the producers
of grain through western Canada particularly.
Also I note that Reform is supportive of their making their own
marketing decisions, also directing, structuring and voluntarily
participating, which is rather different from the government side
of the House where those members think they know best.
The previous speaker, my fellow member, pointed out that almost
arrogant attitude that the government knows best. It is an
insult to farmers. It is an offence to them that we should think
we know better than they, the ones who produce this, the ones who
have so much at stake in terms of how this ought to be marketed.
I note as well in other Reform Party literature that we support
a modern, democratized market oriented Canadian Wheat Board in
which participation is voluntary.
The things I want to be emphasizing here today are modern and
democratized, in particular this whole issue of a democratic
Canadian Wheat Board.
It has been in the media in numbers of places where our minister
responsible for the wheat board, Ralph Goodale, on January 21
held a meeting in Regina to discuss—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I gently remind hon.
members that we do not refer to ministers by name. We refer to
ministers through their office.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the
reminder. On that occasion the minister held a meeting to
discuss the rules for the election of directors to the Canadian
Wheat Board as proposed in Bill C-4.
I offer to the members today that had the minister been there,
as presumptuous as that would have been, to discuss the rules for
the election of all directors of the Canadian Wheat Board, that
would have gone down a lot better with Reformers.
I think there would have been less consternation, less outrage
and anger at discussing elections for all directors of the wheat
board. By that, they would be in a better position hereafter to
change it to amend things as best for the farmers.
I am very much of the view that we need to have an entire 15
member elected Canadian Wheat Board. A 10 member board of
directors elected as in Bill C-4 at present is not enough. A
fully elected board of directors is mandatory if the voice of
farmers is to be truly heard.
I want to refer to some of my experience in serving on a hybrid
board, as I would call it, partly elected and partly appointed in
the province of Saskatchewan.
We had the historic, first in the country, health board elections
there.
1545
In my district, the Saskatoon district of health, the largest in
the province, we have eight elected members on the board and six
appointed members. We have this hybrid kind of board. I have
been on the record before as calling it that. It is nothing new
today as my position has been known for some time.
I do not believe that a hybrid board comprised of elected and
appointed members will best serve the interests of producers. It
will be a sterile hybrid, like a mule, the sterile offspring of a
horse and a donkey. It will be non-productive.
I understand the obstinacy and the stubbornness of the minister
responsible for the wheat board. It is akin to the stubbornness
of a mule. It makes some sense in view of what I believe will be
sterility in terms of this hybrid board which will be created as
a result of Bill C-4.
With respect to the Saskatoon district health board, the intent
was for board members to be accountable to the constituents of
their wards. Appointed board members from time to time came up
for reappointment. They were put in their positions by the
provincial government. By nature of that dynamic, there simply
could not be the same freedom for appointed board members to
objectively critique the government.
In that case it was the provincial government. In this case it
is the federal government. Appointed members cannot be as open
and fully critique wheat board policy and budget decisions which
pertain to the effective marketing of wheat and other grains.
In the Saskatoon district health board as well, appointed
members could jeopardize their reappointment if they publicly
voiced concern about inadequate funding and those types of
things. These appointed members will also have those concerns.
They dare not embarrass the federal government by taking a
contrary position on the direction in wheat board policy.
Even if a certain course of action is deemed to be in the best
interest of farmers and is endorsed by the general farm
community, an appointed board member would feel reluctant to
support the initiative if it made the appointing federal
government look bad. Appointees most naturally feel accountable
to the person or persons who put them in that position. As we
say, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I can recall prior to the 1993 federal election when the
Liberals were in the habit, as they have been over the course of
a number of years, of appointing candidates. One individual in
the Saskatoon area was appointed and served in the House. That
individual was elected to the House, but was defeated in the last
election by the Reform member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.
It was well known that the backlash that individual experienced
was in part because the voters felt that the individual would
kowtow to the government and to the prime minister who had
appointed him.
I have grave concerns and great difficulty with an appointed
board, the same as I did with the Saskatoon district health
board. I believe that an individual who is a capable and
potential wheat board member would have an interest in obtaining
a mandate in a democratic way.
Many board members on the Saskatoon district health board are
certainly capable of making considerable contributions to the
board. In my view, they should step into the public arena and be
chosen by the democratic process, which would give them a public
mandate.
I do not believe that hybrid boards comprised of elected and
appointed members will serve the public interest.
I am also concerned that directors could be denied liability
protection if they were to speak and act freely on behalf of
farmers. Of course, I am pushing. Reformers want a fully
elected wheat board.
As well, we have a concern with the wheat board having to act in
the best interests of the corporation, which is not necessarily
synonymous with the best interests of the farmers.
If directors are only covered for liability, if they act in the
best interests of the corporation, any instructions given to the
CWB by the federal government will be defined as the best
interests of the corporation. We know well that may not
necessarily be synonymous with the best interests of the wheat
board.
1550
In conclusion, it is my belief from personal experience and as I
look at Bill C-4, that the entire wheat board should be elected.
They should have as their mandate to act in the best interest of
the farmers, producers, the hardworking men and women, teenagers,
the individuals who grow the grain. We need a fully elected
wheat board.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just before we go on
to the next speaker in this debate, I want to point out to hon.
members, to the gallery and people tuning in today that we are
debating Bill C-4 which has to do with the wheat board.
There are 48 motions of amendment. They are grouped into six or
seven different groups and they are debated in a group. Members
need to be relevant to that group. So from time to time, it
would not be the worst thing in the world that ever happened if
members came back to relevance to discuss, in this particular
group which is Group No. 4, the fact that is how the board of the
wheat board happens to get their president.
Resuming the debate and touching on the relevance of the debate,
the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we certainly appreciate your wise intervention.
It is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-4, and in particular the
Group No. 4 motions. If I may just give a bit of a preamble to
Bill C-4.
This issue is one that our party has fought for for a very long
time and have worked very hard to try to bring some sense and
sensibility to the wheat board for the men and women who toil in
the fields in our country to produce some of the best wheat in
the world.
Bill C-4, and in particular the Group No. 4 motions, we find
extremely egregious. It prevents our men and women who are
farmers to ensure that they are producing the best crop, that the
crop is going to fetch the best price and they will have in
return the best profits.
The wheat board bill and the proposals therein produced by the
government are in fact going to restrict and constrict the wheat
board in its ability to serve the farmers of this nation. We
find that extremely unfortunate, particularly since strong
constructive solutions have been put for quite some time to the
government, not only by our party, but also by people in the
agriculture business. It is unfortunate that the government has
continued to ignore those.
I would like to begin with something very important. The
legislation is not bringing about voluntary participation in the
Canadian Wheat Board and farmers are not given the right to
choose. I will make one point here and it is an interesting
analogy.
When you look at other areas in the agricultural sector, areas
that have taken themselves out of the restricting and
constricting rules and regulations of the wheat board, have they
done worse? No. They in fact have done a lot better. Their
profits have gone up. Their production has gone up. Their
ability to invest within their industry has improved. They have
hired more people, and as a result, Canadians and Canada are a
lot better off.
Why the government does not take the bull by the horns and try
to revamp the Canadian Wheat Board to make it nimble and
effective is beyond me. Why does it not make this board keep the
rules and regulations that are going to effectively represent the
farmers and remove those that are not? I will just list a few of
these points if I may, relating, of course, to the Group No. 4
motions, most of which have been put forth by members from the
Reform Party.
Thousands of grain farmers have told the government that they
are not happy with the monopoly that currently exists in the
Canadian Wheat Board. They want the market and they want to be
able to deal with the market products themselves. The government
has not done that. The government has continued to support the
rules and regulations that act as a constricting and restricting
influence on wheat producers in this country. That is
unfortunate.
I do not know why the government continually tries to support
the production and furthering of rules and regulations when we
should have the removal of them. There are more rules and
regulations that restrict trade in this country east-west than
north-south. Why are we restricting the ability of our private
sector, and in this case our wheat producers, from being the best
that they can become by producing these rules and restrictions
that over-regulate them when farmers in other countries of the
world do not have to labour under the same restrictions?
It is grossly unfair to them and it is about time that the
government listens to the farmers, many of whom have been before
the agriculture committee to tell the government very clearly
that this bill, Bill C-4, cannot by itself go through in its
current format.
1555
I would like to also mention the ability of the board of
directors to be elected. The government had an opportunity to
put forth amendments through Bill C-4 with the Group No. 4
motions that we have produced to ensure that the board of
directors is going to be elected and that the president of the
wheat board is going to be accountable to the directors. The
directors are going to be accountable to the wheat board and to
the farmers, not the president and not the government.
The last I checked this was supposed to be a democracy. A
democracy does not run when the minister controls the wheat
board. The wheat board has to be controlled by the directors who
are duly elected by the members whom they are supposed to
represent. Anything short of that would not be a democracy.
That is something that we in the Reform Party are fighting for
and have done so for almost five years. If the government would
listen for a change, perhaps we could all win, and in particular
the farmers of this country could win.
It is also very important for directors who normally would hold
authority over the wheat board that the minister responsible and
the Minister of Finance not be the ones who are controlling this
board of directors.
The board of directors could also be denied liability protection
if they were to speak and act freely on behalf of farmers.
Directors would only be covered for liability if they act in the
best interests of the corporation. This smacks of what? The
Mafia. How can we possibly have an organization which tells its
directors “You can only do what pleases the corporation but not
what pleases and supports the farmers of this country”? Who are
these directors supposed to represent, the farmers or the
minister and this government?
Mr. Wayne Easter: The farmers.
Mr. Keith Martin: I am glad that the government members
are agreeing that the board of directors should speak for the
farmers. It is unfortunate but the way Bill C-4 stands unamended
will ensure that the board of directors is going to be
responsible to the minister and not to the farmers. In fact the
directors of the Canadian Wheat Board will be under the rule of
the minister, not directed by the farmers, but by a stranglehold
by the president and by the minister.
The Mafia operates that way. The Canadian Wheat Board should
not.
I hope the government listens to and adopts wholeheartedly the
Group No. 4 motions that my party, the Reform Party, has
produced. They are sensible motions, they are reasonable
motions, they are realistic motions and they are motions that
will strengthen Bill C-4. They are motions that will help our
farmers be more effective. They are motions that I think the
members can be proud of and know that they have done a good deal
for the farmers of our country.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak in this debate on Bill C-4 and in particular the
Group No. 4 amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you know very much about farming,
but I do know that you have a lot of knowledge about grains and
what you can do with grains. I commend you on your
entrepreneurship in setting up a bakery that not only is
successful but produces some of the most tasty results in which
Edmontonians have an opportunity to partake.
1600
I commend you, Mr. Speaker, for providing this kind of service
to so many people in your community.
When I look at the bill and the Group No. 4 motions—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Would the hon.
member for Malpeque be kind enough to repeat his point of order?
Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Could you throw the
hon. member a bun so we can taste it to see if it is worth all
that praise?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I was seriously
considering questioning whether or not the hon. member for
Crowfoot was being relevant. I could not see that he was not so
we will go back to debate.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering how far you
would allow me to stretch the limits of this debate.
Nevertheless, when I look at the bill and the amendments, I look
for the balance as we do with any legislation and reform of
legislation. I ask myself whether the bill relieves the pressure
building up from a number of sources against the monopoly held by
the wheat board. I do not see that it does that. That is
unfortunate. In my riding, which is a large agricultural riding,
there are good, honest, hardworking people on both sides of the
debate about what we should do in terms of reforming the Canadian
Wheat Board.
It is unfortunate that in democratizing the board the minister
and the government are unwilling to go the full way. They are
allowing a number of members on the board to be elected but are
retaining the power and the authority to appoint the president.
Why is that? What is there to fear about having the president
of the Canadian Wheat Board elected? What is wrong with that?
I would like members on the other side to provide a rationale
for only going part way. There is common ground on the whole
issue of reforming the wheat board, of election of the board by
those in agriculture who have a vital, vested interest. We have
an indirect vested interest because they produce the food we
consume. They provide the new wealth on which the government
taxes so exorbitantly every year. They are the ones to whom our
international brothers and sisters look to provide the food they
require but cannot grow in their own countries.
Why would we not go all the way and allow for the complete
democratization of the wheat board? Then those in agriculture
would be accountable and responsible. They understand the trials
and tribulations of farmers in attempting to keep their farming
operation going.
The problem is that when it comes right down to it the wheat
board does not care very much whether or not my farming neighbour
has to go bankrupt. It really does not care. Farmers are always
looking for ways and means of enhancing their own standard of
living and ensuring that their profit margin is broad enough to
face a possible bad year when there may be a crop failure. They
are looking for security, as I think everyone is.
The whole business of seeking security and freedom to seek
security are very much part of the freedom individuals throughout
the world seek. Farmers are seeking freedom that would allow
them to secure their farms for their children and grandchildren.
They want to function in a system that is clear and unequivocal.
They want to direct their sales and products into markets that
will give them the greatest return.
1605
Why would they want a greater return? It is so simple. Why are
farmers seeking a greater return and the right to market in areas
that grant them the greatest return? It is to provide for their
families, to provide for their children, to provide for their own
feelings of security. If the wheat board is the mechanism that
will provide that, why is it that many with a vital vested
interest do not recognize that?
I have talked to farmers on both sides of the issue. I have
asked them what they are seeking. It always comes forward that
they are seeking security for their families and for the
continuation of their operations in spite of the fact that they
might face a crop failure or the kinds of financial difficulties
those in the farming community face from time to time when they
have to go to the lending institutions to ask them to carry them
over a certain period of time into the next fall or the next
spring, depending upon the type of crops they are developing.
When I look at the motions in Group No. 4 I see a lack of
democracy. This is unfortunate. We could have reached a balance
everyone would have supported, certainly those in the
agricultural community. I have not talked to anyone who is
against the election of the board. That has formed part of the
common ground that could bring the both sides together.
Transparency is another issue. Why can we not have a full and
transparent audit of what the wheat board is doing on behalf of
farmers? Why do we not have that? That is what they are
seeking. I have not heard farmers say that they would be against
the auditor general auditing the books of the wheat board as the
auditor general does for every other department of government.
Why not do that?
There are areas of common ground that we could be moving on. We
could develop balance that would not threaten the existence of
the wheat board. However, if the wheat board does not change and
bring in reasonable alternatives that strike that balance, we may
see the wheat board damaged in ways no one wants to see it
damaged.
Questions have been raised with regard to whether or not the
wheat board's monopoly is a violation of some of our
international agreements such as the free trade agreement. Is
there a subsidy? When ranchers can buy barley at prices below
those of their competing neighbours to the south, is that a
subsidy? What will the international tribunal have to say if
there is a challenge there? Pressures are building up to
challenge the wheat board monopoly.
We do not know for sure how those questions will be answered,
but we should be looking ahead. If we want to maintain a
marketing board called the Canadian Wheat Board, we should be
addressing some of the concerns of farmers. Bill C-4 falls short
of that. It is unfortunate because we have an opportunity to
strike that balance. Many of the motions in Group No. 4 would
lend themselves to striking that balance.
Some of my colleagues have touched on the the international code
of ethics for Canadian business. What is the wheat board afraid
of? Why would it not want to bind itself to the international
code of ethics for Canadian businesses? Is there apprehension or
fear? If so, what is it about? What is there about the
international code of ethics for Canadian business that the
Canadian Wheat Board finds offensive, or why is it reluctant to
come under that code of ethics?
Farmers always take it in the neck.
When there is a bad year, no one else suffers but them and those
who rely upon a healthy agricultural society.
1610
I was talking to representatives of the two railroads. When
farmers put grain in a grain car and it sits more than three
days, they have to pay a penalty of $40 per day. When there is a
long shore strike or anything that prevents the grain from
reaching the market and the ships are sitting offshore racking up
demurrage penalties, who pays for that? The farmers pay for
that.
I had a farmer say to me “What is wrong with the picture? I
have to pay for the transportation of my grain to the port. I
have to pay for the cleaning. The cleanings are sold and I
receive no benefit”.
There is much wrong with that picture. We can look at Bill C-4
and ask whether it strikes the balance. It does not strike the
balance. That is why I encourage all hon. members to take a
close look at the amendments being offered. I feel there is a
balance that we need within those amendments.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I trust I will have some latitude as this is my maiden speech.
An hon. member: Where have you been?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Where have I been? I have been in the
House. I have written four maiden speeches and have been fully
prepared at least three or four times, but the government brought
closure and I was unable to make my speech.
Those in my riding watching would wonder why I would be speaking
about the Canadian Wheat Board in the House as member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands, especially my maiden speech. I would like
it to be very meaningful and will get to it in a minute.
In all sincerity I want to speak a little about my predecessor
who worked very hard. He was very well respected among all
political parties in my riding, Mr. Jack Frazer. I pay tribute
to Jack and to his wife, June, for the hard work and his
commitment to the House for the four years preceding me.
It is an honour to stand in the House—and I have spoken a few
times in question period—to represent the views of the
constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands who elected me with such an
overwhelming majority and to ensure they are heard. I admit it
has been a very frustrating experience for me because many times
I have been silenced not only at this level but at committee as
well. I have found it an incredibly frustrating experience not
to be able to speak in the House and represent their views.
That brings me to the Group No. 4 amendments we are talking
about today. I look at this issue as not so much the Canadian
Wheat Board but what this is all about: democracy versus
dictatorship and ethics.
These amendments could apply to all government ministries. That
is what we are talking about. The government is proposing what
it wants to call a mixed enterprise. I note that the western
grain marketing panel in July 1996, after a year long study,
suggested that the government needed to operate the Canadian
Wheat Board like a business.
I am involved with the fisheries committee. Ironically, after
touring both Atlantic Canada and western Canada, we heard exactly
the same thing from some 15 to 20 communities, that government
needed to operate the board like a business.
Here is what the Liberals are suggesting. We are to have an
elected board. Lo and behold, what is their definition of
democracy? They are going to allow 10 officials to be elected
but they want to appoint five of their political hacks to the
board.
More important, who are they appointing to this board and in
what positions? This is what I find absolutely appalling. They
are to appoint a president and a CEO to the wheat board.
1615
With any company I know or that I have been involved with, I
recognize the power and the influence these two positions have
over that entire board of directors. The government is doing
nothing. It is still a dictatorship. There is no democracy.
That is what I find so frustrating.
I urge all members who are listening to really look at what this
means. This institution, this House, represents democracy. I am
here because I believe in democracy. We see troubles all over the
world. They stem when a country leans toward dictatorship rather
than democracy. What the government is suggesting is an absolute
dictatorship and nothing less. It is going to appoint five
members and the president and CEO to this board. It is going to
have control of this organization. I admit I do not know a lot
about it, but the farmers will have no input in the direction of
where this goes. What we have is a dictatorship.
I would like this House to recognize what is going on. The last
four speakers have been from one political party. The Canadian
Wheat Board is probably the most influential board and the most
important board to the prairie provinces. Out of this entire
democracy, this whole House, who is standing up on their behalf?
I do not hear anybody from the NDP. I do not hear anybody from
the Tories, the Liberals or the Bloc. If anyone spoke before the
last four speakers from those parties, then I will acknowledge
that. When I walked into this House, the only party speaking up
for these people is the Reform Party. This is a major bill
affecting Canada. The next part is about ethics.
The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River has put forward
this motion. He is trying to incorporate what the government has
been pushing for.
The government has been pushing for all Canadian businesses and
corporations to be signatories to the international code of
ethics for Canadian business. That is common sense. It sounds
simple. The government wants all businesses and corporations to
sign on to an ethics code for Canadian businesses. Guess what?
Not the Canadian Wheat Board. We have our hands in that one.
Imagine if we had to have those guys live by the code. We saw
all about ethics in question period today. I will not go there,
I would be here all afternoon.
When it comes to ethics, the government is out the window, it
has no idea. It is trying to push the private sector to have a
code of ethics, but when it comes to the wheat board, no sir.
That would be terrible, some of our people are there. They would
never be able to abide by those rules.
Although I do not have a prepared speech, like I have had in the
past, this is a very important debate. It is about democracy and
it is about ethics. It is about a board that is going to affect
the prairie provinces. Probably the most significant piece of
legislation that affects these provinces is the Canadian Wheat
Board. These people are left with a dictatorship. There have
been recommendations to have it run like a corporation. The
government is totally ignoring that. It is consistent with what
I have observed in fisheries. We need to run it like a business,
but no, it has to come under the tight control of this
government. By appointing the president and CEO, the government
is not willing to give that up. I think it is shameful.
The big points are democracy and ethics. I would encourage all
the members in this House to have a hard look at this. I will
come back later and speak on the other groups and motions.
1620
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great interest that I rise to speak to Bill C-4, an act
to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act in depth.
Naturally, the aim of the bill is to try to revitalize—and
I say “try” to revitalize advisedly—the former Canadian Wheat
Board, which was in my opinion a dictatorship where three, four, up
to five patronage appointments could be made to the board of
directors, paying fairly well it seems, since there was often
someone knocking at the door of the agriculture department to take
the job, which was not particularly high profile, but was well
paid.
I said that they were trying to revitalize since, of the 15
directors, 10, two thirds of the positions, will be filled through
a vote by the producers themselves.
If there is someone interested in the operation of the Canadian
Wheat Board, it is not the fellows from Prince Edward Island nor
the farmers from Quebec, but western grain producers. They will
have the authority, with the aid of a pencil, to appoint directors,
and when the directors no longer prove satisfactory, they can put
them out—the ten of them that is.
However, the government in its great wisdom has decided to
keep five positions for itself. Four appointments will be made
through the governor in council, but the other, the most
prestigious, the lucrative one, the position of power, that of
president, will be filled by appointment too.
The Bloc Quebecois has a very constructive suggestion for the
Liberal government, and I would like to take a few seconds here to
read it to you. It is Motion No. 6.
We are proposing that the president be appointed following
consultation of the committee of the House of Commons that normally
considers matters relating to agriculture. What exactly does this
mean?
We have, here in the House of Commons, the Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Agri-Food, chaired of course by a Liberal.
There are eight Liberal MPs and six opposition members on this
committee. Obviously, they control it. They could swallow us
right up—eight against six, and add to that the chair who, like
the supreme court, usually leans the same way, in the direction of
the Liberals. Right now, they run it. I respect their right to do
so.
I predict that the position of president will become a great
Liberal patronage appointment.
Earlier, while waiting to speak, I quickly cast about in my memory
for the key appointments of members sitting in the House since I
have been here to well paid, prestigious, unelected positions.
The names that came to mind were the former member for
Ottawa—Vanier, Jean-Robert Gauthier, because I am allowed to say
his name, who is now sitting as a senator in the other House, and
David Berger, the former member from Montreal West, who gave up
his spot, a safe Liberal riding, to one of our current good
ministers. He was appointed ambassador to Israel.
This is known as a tactic to liberate ridings. Just recently,
a little before the election—the promise was made before the
election, but it was not made public until after, so as to keep
voters happy—it was my good friend, the member for Beauce, Gilles
Bernier, an independent—remember him? He sat not far from us.
1625
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for Bourassa
on a point of order.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I was fine with the member for
Frontenac—Mégantic, but now I think he is off topic. I would like
to hear what he has to say about Bill C-4, not a litany of
government appointments.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, this
group of amendments has to do with appointments to the board. The
hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic is relevant.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I taught for 27 years and
in every class there was always one student who tried to disrupt
the classroom. In this group of Liberals, we have the hon. member
for Bourassa, whose behaviour is not that of a regular student but
rather of an undisciplined one.
I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to draw on your authority and expel
him if he continues to distract the members opposite. This House
is no circus.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for Bourassa
on another point of order.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I think I am entitled to take
part like everyone else and I am speaking on behalf of my
constituents. I think the hon. member—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate. The
member for Frontenac—Mégantic.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope my time will not
cut short off because of this sort of nonsense. You seem to be
nodding your approval, and I thank you.
I was therefore saying that the Liberal Party has discovered
another ploy, which is to liberate certain relatively safe ridings
for friends that could take over. Incumbents are appointed to
prestigious positions that are usually paid more than an MP, and
this frees up the seat.
I wanted to make a prediction. The president of the future
Canadian Wheat Board will be a Liberal. This Liberal is sitting
across from us now, and probably does not know the first thing
about the Canadian Wheat Board. We will pay for many years so that
he can find out, and just as he is starting to get the idea, he
will leave to collect his gold plated pension.
He will then have two hefty pensions.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, on which
it is my great pleasure to sit with several of my colleagues whom
I see in the House now, is a committee that I believe takes its
work very seriously. It astonishes me that certain members
opposite, who sit on the committee with me, do not wish to take on
an additional, collective responsibility and voice their opinion on
the future president of the Canadian Wheat Board.
For how many hours and weeks did the standing committee
examine this problem? The entire committee trooped out west. We
visited the four provinces.
No one in the House, I am speaking about members, is more familiar
with the problems of farmers and the Canadian Wheat Board than the
12 members now sitting on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food. I am offering my colleague, the member for Bourassa, an
unparalleled opportunity to feel like his party, his prime
minister, is giving him an additional responsibility. But he is
not interested.
In closing, I wish to raise a final point. The Canadian Wheat
Board has traditionally reported to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
1630
I do not know what is going on. When the Prime Minister
shuffled his cabinet after the election, he put the former Minister
of Agriculture in Natural Resources. No problem with that. But he
did not see fit to leave the responsibility for the Canadian Wheat
Board with our Minister of Agriculture. Why not? Too heavy a task?
Incompetence? I am asking you the question, Mr. Speaker. I would
like an answer from my colleagues over there, or better yet, from
the Minister of Natural Resources.
Why has he grabbed on to this position, this role of directing
the Canadian Wheat Board within the Department of Natural
Resources? They do not seem to go together. We have a good
Minister of Agriculture, who does the very best he can. Why not
give him all the tools he needs?
He is going to work for the Western producers, the grain producers,
but when it comes time to talk about a very important tool, the
Canadian Wheat Commission, he will say "For that, you need to see
my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources".
I await that response, Mr. Speaker, and I would invite you to
ask the party in power to support this motion on Bill C-4, which I
consider a highly constructive motion.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was so
thrilled when the hon. member for Crowfoot asked you to throw him
a bun. I was hoping you would be able to do that because I wanted
to catch it before it reached him. I understand they are
extremely delectable.
This afternoon I want to commend you, Mr. Speaker, for
recognizing the significance of agriculture in Western Canada.
But before I go into the details of the Group No. 4 amendments, I
wish to pay a tribute to the farmers of Canada.
Farmers are among our most productive people. They are also
among our most reliable people. These are the people who
understand ethics probably better than anyone else. These are the
people who recognize the difference between controlling your
environment or having so much of what you do controlled by the
environment itself.
How many farmers have you seen, Mr. Speaker, who have suffered
from the ravages of nature as it cuts across their crop with a
hail storm or a wind storm or whatever the case might be? These
people are humble people. They recognize the difference between
what they can do and what the creator can do.
It is time that we recognized that our agricultural community,
that community which produces the food all of us need to eat and
sustain ourselves, this community and this economy is supported
to a large degree by the farmers who till the land, who bring the
various plants into production and who carefully nurture what it
is that needs to happen.
Farmers are imaginative people. They are innovative people. They
have produced things that it was not possible for us to create
many years ago. They have brought into the world a wheat
production in particular that is the object of great envy from a
lot of other countries which do not have the weather, do not have
the land, do not have the technology to do what our farmers can
do.
We have created the Canadian Wheat Board, a board which was to
rationalize the marketing of the commodities wheat and barley.
But we are going to talk about wheat or at least that is what I
am going to do. This is a very significant part of our
agricultural community.
There are four principles which must apply if we are going to
have a sound board that is going to manage the affairs of
something that is not only important to Canada, not only
important to a major sector of the Canadian economy, but has
international significance. It has a significance to other
countries of the world whose sustenance depend upon the proper
production of wheat in this country of ours.
These are the four principles: Whatever management has done
must be done according to the interests or in the interests of
farmers. It must be based on sound governance and principles of
sound governance. It must be based on principles of sound
management. Finally, the decisions and operations of such a
board must be clear, be auditable and be governed by the
principle of prudence both in the management of the money given
to the board and also in terms of the commodity it administers.
Let us examine each of these principles in turn.
1635
First, is the board operating in the interests of farmers? A
fair return for the product they produce is what the farmers
want. They do not want an exorbitant high price. They do not
want a diminished price that is excessively low. They want a
just price, a price that can be defended wherever they go and
with whatever land is involved. They want that to be the case
within Canada and internationally.
They want something else. They want a sustainable income. They
want some idea as to what will be happening to the price of wheat
and how they will be able to manage the planting, harvesting,
storage and marketing of wheat in such a way that their income is
sustained.
They want something else. They not only want to sustain their
incomes, they want to be able to have some kind of
predictability.
Mr. Speaker, you know in the business you operate that you
prepare a business plan to start the business. Then you prepare a
cash flow statement and you prepare a marketing plan which
probably goes five years into the future. It outlines cash flow
for the initial year. Then it is moved forward to the second
year, the third year, the fourth year and the fifth year. You
begin to build the cost structures, the increases, revenues and
the profitability of your business into the plan.
That is what the farmers are looking for. It is a lot more
difficult to do that in the farming community. Nevertheless that
is in the interests of the farmers. That is the first principle
which needs to be observed by this board.
The second principle is one of sound governance. The primary
issue is that of democracy. In a democracy the outcome of an
event, to decide who is going to do what or to rule what, is in
the terms of a franchise, a vote. The person or group that gets
the most votes is the group that carries the day. That is not the
case with the wheat board.
For some reason or other the governing structure here is one of
appointment. The determination of what happens in this board is
the subject of determination by the minister of agriculture. That
may at one very abstract level be considered to be a form of
democracy but that is dictatorship within a democracy which is
somewhat contradictory. It is not only somewhat contradictory
but I suggest that it is contradictory.
For that reason all of the members of this House should
carefully examine the amendment presented by the member for
Prince George—Peace River. I believe he has a very sound
statement to make.
When a bill is presented to the House, as Bill C-4 was
presented, and there are 48 amendments, that should give cause to
everyone in this House to ask what is wrong with this bill.
Forty-eight different things that are found to be somewhat in
error or to have a shortfall. If nothing else, we should think
about that.
I have just covered the first two principles, the interests of
the farmers and sound government. I do not think the board acts
in the interests of the farmers. In terms of sound government,
the board is not determined by democratic principles or by vote.
The third principle relates to the application of governance.
This has to do with looking at the policies and the principles
that are involved. If they are going to do this properly they
will do it in terms of fairness, justice, transparency,
accountability and responsibility. All those things need to be
there.
Wheat board policies must guide the action very clearly.
Regulations should be such that they allow farmers to recognize
fairness and justice in the way permit books are issued, in the
way there is access to storage, in the way there is access to
transportation and so on.
We also need to recognize that there need to be clear lines of
responsibility. There is no such indication in Bill C-4.
There is no clear line of responsibility.
1640
If a company hired a president, and if the company was not
responsible and the president was not accountable, we would say
“What kind of deal is this? We are not having anything to do
with it”.
To whom is the CEO responsible? In this case it is to the
minister.
I do not see how any self-respecting farmer would allow himself
to be appointed to this particular board. In effect, they have
no power. All the power rests with the minister in the final
analysis.
Mr. Wayne Easter: That is wrong.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: The president is accountable not to
the board; the president is accountable to the minister. He has
a divided personality.
An hon. member: Read the act.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: He is supposed to listen to the board
on the one hand and he is supposed to listen to the minister on
the other. So he will sit on the fence and will get cut right
down the middle. He will not know what he is. If he does not
side with the minister, the minister will say “Sorry, we do not
need you any more”. That is a critical point.
What about if disciplinary action has to be taken? Who will do
it? Will the board do it or will the minister do it? These
things are not clear.
What about the release of information? What kind of information
will be released by the board to the farmers? What kind of
information will be released by the board to the minister? What
information will be released by the minister to the board? What
information will be released by the board to the president, to
the minister, by the minister to the president, and so on?
There are all kinds of opportunities for misinformation, not
enough information and selected information in order to produce a
particular result.
These are some of the things which are wrong with this bill.
Let it be known that the farmers are good people and that the
Canadian Wheat Board needs to be amended in terms of the
amendments which have been presented to Bill C-4.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have made one observation and I would like to offer
this as a suggestion. Rather than have the Liberals shouting
their answers across the floor while someone is speaking, they
should simply get up and talk about it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is certainly
not a point of order.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise this afternoon to say a few words about the
motions in Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 4 to 19.
An hon. colleague in the Reform Party mentioned earlier that it
is the only party which is fighting for farmers. I wish to make
it very clear that is not the case. New Democrats have always
been supportive of farmers. We are proud to stand and fight for
farmers.
We have always strongly supported the wheat board because it
works in the best interests of farmers. For 60 years the wheat
board as a crown agency has done an admirable job for farmers.
The government is suggesting a 15 member board of directors, 10
of whom will be elected by producers. We recognize that the
government must continue to have some influence on the wheat
board if Ottawa is to continue to guarantee initial prices for
grains.
However, we feel very strongly that if the wheat board is to
have a board of directors, elections must be fair. They should
be elections by and for farmers. We do not want vested corporate
interests interfering. We see too much of vested corporate
interests nowadays. That is exactly what the MAI is attempting
to do, to give free rein to the corporations so they can dictate
their will upon others. We feel that with something as important
as the wheat board this must not be the case.
Fair elections mean one producer, one vote. The Reform Party
suggests that big farmers should have more votes than small
farmers. We say that is anti-democratic and we want no part of
it.
Fair elections mean a limit on the spending campaign of
candidates, just as there is in federal election campaigns, so
that wealthy individuals do not have an advantage. Wealth
dominates too many things today. Those who are struggling cannot
get ahead simply because they do not have money in their pockets.
We want to see fair elections and spending limits.
Fair elections mean a strict and transparent limit to what third
parties can spend. We want transparency. That is very important
today.
The wheat board, as we know, is a $6 billion industry. It is a
very big industry. Certain corporate interests would just love
to get their hands on it.
We do not want them using their deep pockets to influence the
elections of the board of directors. We are already seeing too
much corporate interference in the wheat board debate. For the
past several months the Canadian Wheat Board has come under
sustained attack. This attack is orchestrated by certain farm
groups, aided by corporate interests, including the Canadian
Federation for Independent Business, the Winnipeg Commodity
Exchange and Cargo.
1645
The so-called coalition against Bill C-4 is trying to do through
the back door what it has failed to do through the democratic
process. For example, it is demanding that barley be dropped
from the wheat board's jurisdiction. Farmers voted on that very
question in 1997 and 63% of them voted in favour of keeping
barley under the board's jurisdiction. So we talk about
democracy. Again, democracy is where the majority rules.
We say to these corporate interests and to the Reform Party that
debate about the wheat board is a debate for farmers, not for
corporations for their greed and their self-interest.
We have also witnessed the disgraceful media campaign by the
National Citizens' Coalition to discredit the wheat board. This
coalition claims to be funded by ordinary Canadians, but we
believe it is bank rolled by big business. The coalition is a
soulmate to the Reform Party. The head of the coalition is a
former Reform MP and a close confident of the Reform Party
leader.
Again, we come back to the question of fairness. If there are
going to be elections for a board of directors we want them to be
fair and not bought by corporate friends of the Reform Party with
their deep pockets.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish I
could say I am delighted to stand here today and speak on Bill
C-4, the Canadian Wheat Board Act, but as a matter of fact I am
not. I am not delighted at all. I am very upset about this
legislation. I am upset about the fact that we have in this House
members, the majority by far who are over there on that majority
side government, who are not under the wheat board, who are
making arbitrary decisions that affect western farmers. They sit
over there and laugh while we are trying to bring these very
serious and important issues to their mind.
What is also very annoying is that those gutless members over
there are all going to vote the way they are told. They are not
going to stand up and say yes to what the members from the west
have said, because it affects the farmers in the west. The wheat
board does not affect farmers in Ontario or in the east. It is
strictly farmers in the west. They have the gall to stand there
and say we will do the way our minister says and we will not even
listen to this debate.
The fact is there is a lot of very serious opposition to this
bill. They can stand up and say there was this vote and
two-thirds of the farmers voted to stay in the wheat board. Sure,
what was the question. It was a rigged question just like that
question in Quebec was. It said do you want all in or all out?
That is the same as on a hot day. Do you stand on the edge of
the pool or do you go four feet under? That is the choice that
we were given, instead of giving the farmers the choice they
really wanted and that was simply freedom.
There is no reason in the world why the wheat board cannot
continue to function and still allow individual farmers, when
they see a market that they can fill, to have the freedom to
market their own grain outside the wheat board if they so choose.
This is a bunch of hooey when they say that the wheat board
cannot function unless it has a monopoly. Monopolies basically
stifle any good performance. Farmers in the west have been dumped
on. They have been shafted. Dare I say it, they have been raped
by central Canada over and over again and they are plumb tired of
it.
I suppose this is a question of unity. Democracy only works as
long as we have the consent of the governed. There are more and
more farmers out west who are getting so cotton pickin' upset
about this intrusion on their freedom by this central government
that they are losing their consent to be governed.
They are getting to a point where they want to revolt. Why will
this government not listen to some very sensible amendments and
say those amendments make sense and we will follow them?
1650
I grew up on a farm in Saskatchewan. When I was a youngster I
remember my dad saying “I cannot understand how come, when I buy
a combine or a tractor that is manufactured in Ontario, I have to
pay the freight from Ontario to Saskatchewan. Yet if I sell them
my grain, I have to pay the freight from my farm all the way to
Ontario”. Why is that? It is because the big powerbrokers, the
big majority here, not listening to the sensible needs of western
farmers, just say nuts to you, we will do whatever we want. It
is just like these guys are doing right now. They are sitting
over there, disrespectful. Look at that potato farmer from
Prince Edward Island. He has nothing to do with the wheat board
and he is sitting there grinning because he is in a position
where he—
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. The member referred to me as a potato farmer. I am not
a potato farmer. I was president of the National Farmers' Union
and I spent 12 years in western Canada dealing with this issue. I
do not like my name being taken in vain by this member.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member does
make a valid point. We should keep our comments directed through
the Chair and not resort to personalities.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I apologize but I still
maintain that he has a disrespectful grin on his face during this
very serious debate. He is sitting there and just basically
saying we have the majority over here and we can do whatever we
want. What is annoying is that they will. When the voting comes
around on this bill in a few days those Liberals over there, one
after the other when their string is pulled, are not going to
listen to this argument. I dare any one of them to stand up
against the recommendation of their minister and vote for what is
right and vote against this bill unless it is properly amended
or, better yet, to vote in favour of these amendments. They do
not have the guts to do it and I do not believe they will.
What we have here is a very basic freedom. When I have an old
car for sale I can sell it to whomever I want. I can ask $500
for my old car. If a guy comes along and offers $400 I can say
No, I want $500 or I ain't selling it. The poor farmer in the
west who has wheat for sale cannot sell his wheat to the highest
bidder. He is forced to sell it to the wheat board and very
often it is at the lowest price.
I have a despicable story to tell. There is a farmer who owes
money to, among other people, the Farm Credit Corporation, a
federal government agency. The Farm Credit Corporation says
money, money, money or else we are going to foreclose on you.
Meanwhile he has his granaries full of grain. He could put
that grain into a truck and sell it for almost twice what the
wheat board would offer him if in fact it issued a quota and said
that it was going to sell it for him.
Instead, his grain is in his bin and he cannot sell it. The
Farm Credit Corporation is threatening foreclosure and he cannot
sell his own grain even though he has a market for it and could
sell it tomorrow if he had that simple freedom. If that is not a
violation of a very fundamental freedom in this country of ours
then I do not know what is.
That is why I urge the members, particularly the members
opposite whom I am talking to. We in the opposition here just do
not have quite enough numbers to force their hand. We will but
we are not there yet. Very frankly, as long as they have the
majority it is in their hands. If they do what is wrong it is
not going to serve this country well and it will be a great
affront to the farmers.
Very often we have these farmers getting together with different
associations. There is a farmer in my riding who specializes in
selling seed grain. Seed grain, specifically, does not come
under the wheat board. He should be able to sell his seed grain
as seed because it is a different kind of market.
1655
It is not for the general market. It is not for making the
macaroni that you and I love so much, Mr. Speaker. He has been
prevented from selling his seed grain because he did not sell it
first to the wheat board. They confiscated his truck at the
border.
I can see where the farmers out west can be upset. Can members
believe it? There are farmers who are arrested. Their crime is
they are trying to sell a product they have raised and is
properly theirs. They want to sell it to the highest bidder at
the highest price they can get. They are in breach of some
arbitrary vicious law.
That has to change. Why can we not have a system whereby all
those farmers who want to can go through the wheat board? That
is certainly a very large organization and many farmers, I am
sure, would choose to do that.
On those instances where they find an alternate market at a
better price or, more important many times, an immediate sale as
opposed to one that is two or three months down the road, why
should they not have the freedom to do that?
I urge that the members opposite stand up on principle, forget
about being trained seals that stand up on command, examine these
amendments and vote in favour of them, support them because—
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been sitting here
with some tolerance, given the source of the comments I have been
listening to for the last 15 minutes. Twice now I have been
accused of being gutless. I have been accused of being a trained
seal and I think that is contrary to the order and decorum
expected in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members, we do
need some sensitivity as to how we reflect one upon the other.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I guess all I
would say is I challenge them to prove me wrong.
This is an opportunity for this government to do what is right,
to do what is good, to stand on principle, to give farmers
individual freedom and control over the wheat board that they
themselves should be controlling.
It should not be run by distant Ottawa on their behalf with all
its arbitrary rules. They should stand on principle and support
these amendments that we are putting forward and do what is
right.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I do not mean to make
reference to anyone in particular, not the member for Elk Island
who has finished.
We have to be really careful that when we are speaking one side
toward the other and we are perhaps less than complimentary we
make sure that we keep our comments clearly defined in the royal
weave that any pejorative words or sentiments are not addressed
to any one person in particular. Resuming debate.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
to begin I would like to address Motion No. 5 of Group No. 4
with respect to the proposed board of directors for the wheat
board, of which five members would be appointed.
To make my point, I would like to embark on a bit of a journey
in history. In the dying days of the 1993 election campaign, the
Progressive Conservative Party made more than 600 political
patronage appointments.
The current Prime Minister at that time had a field day
criticizing the blatant patronage of the Conservatives, vowing
that he would do different, that he would not insult Canadian
taxpayers in the same manner as the prime minister of the day.
He said, a direct quote from the 1993 campaign, that the people
of Canada will see a big difference with the Liberals in power.
Furthermore, he said that the Liberals were elected to serve the
people of Canada, not to serve themselves.
1700
If we look at the red book of the time, it said “the
Conservatives made a practice of choosing political friends when
making thousand of appointments to commissions and agencies, but
a Liberal government will review the appointment process to
ensure that necessary appointments are made on the basis of
competence”.
The reason I gave that bit of history is that is it not amazing
that a few years later, in September 1997, the Prime Minister
completely reneged on that promise, changed his tune and said
that he appoints people from his party. He said “I am not
going to name people who are not Liberals”. This is a complete
violation of the promises he made both verbally during the
campaign and in their campaign book called the red book.
To illustrate my points, I go back to the year following the
1993 election to give examples for the benefit of all the members
of the House as well as all Canadians. Jean Robert Gauthier,
Liberal MP, Ottawa-Vanier was appointed to the Senate; John
Bryden, New Brunswick Liberal organizer and worked for the Prime
Minister in the 1993 leadership race and also ran Frank McKenna's
election campaigns was appointed to the Senate; Sharon Carstairs,
former Liberal leader and Prime Minister loyalist appointed to
the Senate; Robert Nixon, former Ontario Liberal Leader and
confidant of the current Prime Minister, appointed as chairman of
Atomic Energy of Canada; Royce Frith, former Liberal Speaker of
the Senate, appointed High Commissioner to Great Britain. I
could go on and on but I do not think it would be fitting to
occupy the next several days to list the Liberal political
patronage appointments.
The proposed board is another source of potential patronage
appointments for the government. That is why it does not want to
empower the farmers to run their own board of directors of the
Canadian Wheat Board. It wants to have appointed positions so
that it can continue its “patronage party” which it embarked
upon in 1993. The government has shown no signs of slowing up
its activity in that regard.
Not only is the minister responsible for the wheat board
proposing to control the board through these appointed positions,
the chief executive officer would also be appointed. The
farmer-elected board of directors would not be able to choose its
own chief executive officer. The minister responsible for the
wheat board would have that authority. This is a real affront to
farmers. It should be embarrassing for the Liberal government.
Every chance I have had, I have spoken to the Bill C-4
amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board. Again today and never in
the past has the minister responsible for this bill been here to
listen to the concerns of the western grain farmers as conveyed
by the members of parliament who represent them.
As I speak, there are three Liberal MPs in the House of Commons.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): On a point of
order, Mr. Speaker. Unless I stand corrected by you, Sir, it is
my understanding of the parliamentary rules that it is out of
order to speak to the absence or presence of members.
Perhaps while the member is casting his aspersions he could
rationalize for us the flip-flop of his leader and why he now
lives in Stornoway.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members, first
we will deal with the question of whether or not members refer to
other members in the House.
1705
It is a long-standing custom that we do not refer to the
presence or absence of other members in the House. It is a fact
of life.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, for those people
watching on television, I think they should know something about
what is happening in this House with regard to order—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, I do
not think this is a point of order. We are in debate.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be
pointed out for those people watching that we have circumvented
second reading. We do not have second reading on this bill. If
some of the debate seems to be somewhat extraneous—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, that
is not a point of order.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker,
I was trying to make the point that the best attempts of the
Reform Members of Parliament to represent the concerns that
farmers in our constituencies have with the changes to this bill
have fallen on deaf ears. Our pleas for changes to improve the
bill on behalf of the people it will affect are being taken with
contempt for our ability to stand here and speak on behalf of the
farmers that we represent.
We are talking about members of Parliament from eastern Canada
that do not represent anyone that this bill will impact upon or
affect. The least they could do is not show contempt for us and
hear what we have to say about the people that we represent that
this bill is going to affect. I take affront with the way they
are conducting themselves in the House of Commons today.
An hon. member: You are casting aspersions.
Mr. Jim Pankiwi: With respect to casting aspersions,
as the Liberal member of Parliament is shouting across the floor,
I am merely reading from a text of political patronage
appointments. It is not casting aspersions; it is a simple fact.
The list I have is from 1994. It details the Liberal government
patronage appointments in the first year they were in power. I
think that has great relevance to the discussion today. The
board that will be established if this bill becomes law will
provide them with another source of patronage appointments.
To further illustrate what I am talking about, Robert Wright was
the chief fund-raiser for the prime minister in the 1984
leadership bid. He was appointed the government negotiator with
the Pearson development consortium on the cancelled Toronto
airport contract.
Pat Lavelle, Ontario chair of the current prime minister's 1984
and 1990 leadership campaigns, was appointed Chairman of the
Federal Business Development Bank.
Ron Langstaffe, loyalist to the current prime minister, who ran
Liberal MP Hedy Fry's election campaign against Kim Campbell in
Vancouver Centre, was appointed Chairman of the Vancouver Port
Corporation.
Raynald Guay, former Liberal MP, was appointed Vice-Chairman of
the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
Jim Kinley, twice defeated Liberal candidate, was appointed
Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia.
Patricia Landers, defeated 1993 candidate in Saint John, was
appointed to the Veterans Appeal Board.
James Palmer, Liberal Party fund-raiser in Alberta, was
appointed Director of the Bank of Canada.
Ethel Cherneski, local campaign manager in 1993 in Burnaby, was
appointed Director of Canada Place Corporation.
Donna Scott, provincial Liberal candidate for Mississauga South,
was appointed Chair of the Canada Council.
Morris Kaufman, former Vice-President of the Liberal Party, was
appointed Director of VIA Rail.
As I said, I could go on for days with the list but more
important is the urgency with which I plead with the House of
Commons to not set up yet another board to which the government
can make political patronage appointments, in particular a board
which it can be argued that the positions have to exist. We are
talking about an elected board, elected by the farmers. That is
the way it should be.
1710
On behalf of all western Canadian grain farmers, I will close by
appealing to the Liberal members of Parliament from eastern
Canada to please have some degree of respect for the proposals
which we are putting forward on behalf of the farmers that we
represent and stop the contempt that they have displayed.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have tried
to remain quiet through all these hours of Reform nonsense. Our
viewers can see how pathetic it is to watch people elected by the
public bad-mouthing democracy. Furthermore, they have just
insulted me by saying that, because I come from Quebec, I am not
entitled to speak to this important matter.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Prince
George—Peace River, on a point of order.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, this hon. member earlier in
the debate called the member for the Bloc Quebecois on relevance.
Certainly what he is trying to put forward now, if he wants to
talk about nonsense, is totally irrelevant to Group No. 4
amendments to Bill C-4.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member, as has
been the case with every hon. member today, will draw some
relationship between his or her remarks and the bill that is
before the House. That seems to have been the pattern.
[Translation]
I am sure the hon. member for Bourassa will proceed
accordingly.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I was merely pointing out what
I have heard in the last four Reform speeches. One thing that is
certain, I think that the former producer of—
[English]
The “Rocky Horror Picture Show” might have a sequel after all.
We have heard about that place because it is a horror show.
[Translation]
Some people here have just told me that, as a Quebec MP, I
have no right to talk about wheat. Some people here have just told
me that, since I am from Quebec, I have no right to take a position
on a bill. Some people from the Reform tell me that, since I am
from Quebec, I have no right to give proper representation to my
constituents, who are involved through their taxes in the Canadian
Wheat Board, to the tune of $5 or $6 billion. Does this mean that,
from now on, when fish are being discussed, the Saskatchewan Reform
gang will not be allowed to speak? Really now. That's pathetic.
Once again, this pack of dinosaurs are showing us how they try
to create division, to play on division. We have just been given
a definition of what the Western bloc is.
That gang is no better than the Bloc Quebecois. Good for nothing
but creating a diversion.
Now to get down to business. The people of Bourassa
understand the significance of Bill C-4. They have understood the
importance of democracy. They have understood the significance of
transparency. They have understood the significance of this bill
because we are taking a position on behalf of the agricultural
producers.
One thing that is certain, looking at this board, 10 of the 15
directors are elected by producers, which means this is good,
extraordinary. For once we had something of direct assistance to
producers, but the Reform Party changes its mind once again and
starts talking a lot of nonsense, that the government will control
the Board.
1715
Not only are there only five appointments, but the board can
vote on the president's remuneration and even recommend his
removal. Is that not democracy with a capital D?
Now they are back whining again. And because they have no idea
what to say, they have produced a list of appointments. I am glad
that was the gang appointed, those people have qualifications. No
one from the Reform Party was on the list because none of them has
any qualification.
Transparency and democracy are essential, as is
representativeness. Through this bill we have showed that for once
we have taken a stand for farmers and the members opposite should
be applauding us.
There should not even be any talk of an amendment. Bill C-4 should
receive unanimous approval.
We decided to take a stand for farmers. They decided to take
a stand for certain obscure lobbies I have never heard of. One
thing is certain, and that is that, when it is known how
transparent this board will be, as the member for Bourassa I am
extremely proud and happy to be a member of this government and I
have no hesitation in rising to vote in favour of this bill.
Instead of hurling insults, and constantly tarnishing the
reputations of people who were duly appointed and whose
qualifications will be of extraordinary benefit to the Canadian
people, the members opposite should be thrilled with Bill C-4.
When they do not have much to say, they hurl insults. One
thing is certain and that is that, after members have examined Bill
C-4 point by point, they should unanimously rise in their places
and applaud the minister and the government for the stand they have
taken.
I have taken a stand on behalf of producers. They have taken
a stand on behalf of the lobbies. Ladies and gentlemen listening
today, it is truly pathetic. The record has been set straight.
Instead of trotting out your litanies again, I hope you are going
to take a stand for farmers. Enough of your constant refrain that,
because we come from the east, we are unable to represent you. If
I had to rise in my place every time I thought you were unable to
represent us, you would not be on your feet very often.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise again in the debate on Bill C-4 as it has some
relevance to my family and me. I am a third generation grain
farmer. My family has held a Canadian Wheat Board permit since
the very inception of the Canadian Wheat Board. That gives me
some legitimacy and some relevancy in this debate, contrary to
the member who just spoke. He probably does not know a bushel of
wheat from a gallon of maple syrup.
It is not a matter of whether one member or another might be
able to rise to speak. Any member of the House can rise to speak
on any issue he likes. It is a matter of legitimacy when we
speak. I do not understand these members.
The only thing the Group No. 4 amendments referred to was the
election of wheat board officers.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Bourassa on a point of
order.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I will never allow my
legitimacy to be called into question. I was duly elected. My
constituents elected me by over 9,000 votes and I will not stand
for—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I listened carefully to
the words of the hon. member for Athabasca and he said nothing
about the hon. member's legitimacy. Resuming debate.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, the issue we are
debating in Group No. 4 is election versus appointment of
officers of the Canadian Wheat Board. I wish members opposite
would take the debate a little more seriously, stand in their
places and explain to me, to my constituents and to other western
farmers why they are being denied exactly what farmers in Ontario
currently have.
We are asking for the same thing but we are being told it is not
good for us. It is good for them but they are not breaking down
the door to give the Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction in
Ontario.
1720
We have a valid concern and a valid point to make on behalf of
producers. While maybe some of the debate is repetitive or may
wander from the election of wheat board officers, the emotions
surrounding the issue increase in my riding every day.
I was home on the weekend. I just arrived back in Ottawa this
afternoon. On Saturday afternoon a farmer in my riding contacted
me. He is a second generation grain producer in the mid-northern
part of my riding that has farmed all his life. The Farm Credit
Corporation, an agency of the federal government, has given him
60 days to vacate his farm. He has not been able to put a crop
in the ground for two years. It has been so wet he has not been
able to get into his fields. It draws my emotions out when I
hear people joking, laughing and making sport of the issue and
issues surrounding farming.
On the airplane on my way back to Ottawa I was reading a story
in the paper about a Manitoba farmer, a constituent of a
colleague of mine, who was jailed for 60 days, given a $2,500
fine and had his $50,000 grain truck seized. Almost exactly the
same day this took place, two men who gang raped a woman in B.C.
were given community service. The farmer for selling $500 worth
of grain was put in leg shackles, strip searched and humiliated
day after day. We cannot help but get emotional and start
throwing these things back and forth.
As I said, I challenge members on the other side to take the
matter seriously. Let us stand and talk about why Canadian
farmers cannot have an elected board in control of the wheat
board and cannot have the wheat board working for farmers,
elected by farmers and responsible to farmers.
There must be some transparency in the board. It certainly is
not elected. The minister insists for whatever reason—and I do
not know what it would be—on maintaining control over the board.
Is it any wonder farmers in western Canada are suspicious and do
not trust the board?
Farmers in my riding want to support the Canadian Wheat Board.
They believe in the Canadian Wheat Board and what it can do for
farmers. However, because of its historic injustices, they want
control of the board. They want to elect the people who control
the board. They do not want the minister and the government to
control the board, simply because the courts said that the board
was not responsible to farmers. A situation where a farmer has
to sell his grain to the Canadian Wheat Board at the same time as
he could get double the price for his grain by trucking it just a
few miles across the border seems to be an injustice to farmers.
We have farmers in tears because they are losing the family farm
after two generations. They are being deprived of up to $3 a
bushel for their grain because the Canadian Wheat Board will not
let them market it. It bothers me when I see the whole issue
being made into a joke and being bantered back and forth. It is
an extremely serious issue in my part of the country. I do not
think the demands of my constituents, the Reform Party and my
colleagues are anything more than reasonable and normal under the
circumstances.
I urge members opposite to take them seriously, debate the
matter seriously and give us some real reason they will not
accept the number of amendments we are putting forward to make
the changes.
They will give farmers confidence and faith in the Canadian Wheat
Board and make them willing to use it as a marketing tool for
their grain.
1725
If we keep going in the direction we are going and if the
government insists on maintaining the position it is maintaining,
the Canadian Wheat Board will be destroyed.
Already in my part of the world farmers are turning to other
alternatives. They are looking at non-wheat board crops. They
are looking at local markets in livestock production. They are
turning away from the Canadian Wheat Board because the government
refuses to budge. It refuses to change its position on the
Canadian Wheat Board in any way.
The government is being unreasonable. It makes me quite sad to
see that response. With that I will close my remarks.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps my Reform colleagues could take some time out and
actually read the bill. It might clear up some of their
inconsistencies and untruths.
I look across the floor and see the Bloc in sheep's clothing.
Perhaps the leader of the Reform Party has been taking some
lessons from Mr. Bouchard. Certainly he and members of his party
have been suggesting regionalism. It is not a country as a
whole. Members of Parliament on this side of the
House should not be able to speak to a bill which they guaranteed to
the tune of $6 billion to $7 billion a year. It is simply that
they get to speak to it and we sit here and be quiet.
Today is not my House duty. I flew in a day early for no other
reason than to speak to the bill because it is important to all
Canadians, not just Reformers.
Canadians, particularly those from Alberta, Manitoba and
Saskatchewan, see through the guise that the Reformers are
showing here. They are not representing them in the true spirit
of Canada.
I will go through a few points to try to clear up some of the
inaccuracies and untruths the Reform has said this afternoon.
Apparently, according to Reform members, there would be
absolutely no representation whatsoever on the fisheries board.
According to their view they have absolutely no right to speak to
fisheries officials. That is something this party will not buy
into.
I will touch on a couple of questions that should be answered at
this point. Will the Canadian Wheat Board become more
accountable to farmers? That is a simple question. The answer
is yes. For the first time in history the Canadian Wheat Board
will be run by the board of directors. There will be 15
directors in total, 10 of whom will be elected by producers. The
government is only able to appoint five members. For the $5
billion or $6 billion guarantee that every man, woman and child
in the country is offering they should have some input into the
wheat board.
Will directors have real power? Certainly they will. They have the
power to set the salary for the CEO. There will have to be
consultation with the minister before the CEO is appointed. The
board of directors has true authority in the matter.
Is the CWB subject to a full audit like private sector
companies? I have heard Reformers ramble on and on over the past
several days regarding their concern about the auditor general
not being able to audit the books of the Canadian Wheat Board. On
different days I heard about the concern over more government
regulations and more government involvement and all the same
topics. They continue to contravene themselves on these matters.
The wheat board will be fully audited. The wheat board has a
duly appointed external auditor chosen from the private sector.
It is a well respected auditing firm. It is well known
throughout Canada and North America.
Another question to which members across the floor might like an
answer to bring home to their constituents is whether it is
necessary for the government to appoint some of the directors and
the president. Of course it is and there are two reasons for
this.
First of all, Canadian taxpayers backed the CWB with financial
guarantees totalling $6 billion, covering not only the initial
payments but credit sales as well.
1730
Mr. Jay Hill: Read the bill.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Would it not be interesting for Reform
members to go home and tell them that the government no longer
backs their loans and therefore they will not get paid? Think of
the uncertainty that would create in the marketplace.
Mr. Jay Hill: Read the bill.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: I had the luxury of sitting in on the
agriculture committee to hear all the witnesses. Obviously having
paid attention unlike some of my colleagues across the way, I
have some points which I believe would be of interest to them, if
they would quit laughing and heckling and spend a few moments
learning.
Can the CWB directors effectively demonstrate their disapproval
of the president? It is a simple question and farmers have the
right to know the answer. Yes, they can.
The government can appoint the president, but only after
consultation. Once the president is appointed, the directors have
the power to review his performance and recommend dismissal. They
also have the power to assess his salary. They can set his
salary at $1 if they wish to do so.
It is obvious that the board will have complete control over the
wheat board as a whole, with limited intervention of the
minister.
I heard comments earlier about there being four speakers from
the Reform Party who had spoken in a row on this bill, yet they
criticize us for affording them the opportunity to speak one
after the other on this important issue. We are allowing them
the opportunity to bring forward legitimate concerns regarding
this wheat bill, but all they seem to be doing is driving a wedge
into the country. All they want to do is talk about their little
piece of the pie and suggest that we should not have any
involvement—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt on a point of order.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that he
was affording us the privilege of speaking one after the other to
this bill, but in fact—
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think he said that. I think
he said that members were being critical of the fact that they
were being afforded this privilege, unless I misheard him. In any
event, it is not a point of order.
I know the hon. member may disagree with what the hon. member
has said. There seems to be some disagreement about this bill.
However, that is a matter for debate, with all due respect, and
not a point of order.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, this is not indifferent to
some of the committee work. They only hear selective things that
they want to hear.
What I would ask the grain producers in western Canada to
realize is that this is a good bill. We heard from hundreds of
witnesses. We heard from witnesses who represented thousands of
people.
This is a good bill for Canada. At long last the wheat board
will be passed back and put in the hands of the producers.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: If the Reform members will for once
sit, listen and read through the information, they might get some
clear information, rather than trying to split this country up by
saying that members from Quebec should not be talking to it, that
members from Ontario should not be talking to it and that members
from the maritimes should not be talking to it. It is guaranteed
in the country of Canada. We all have a right as
parliamentarians to speak to this bill.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier the
member who represents part of the Peace River area said that this
was a serious matter and I could not agree more. I wish that
members of the Reform Party would listen to their own advice. I
do not think they are treating this matter very seriously. I
believe they are much more interested in listening to themselves,
much more interested in grandstanding and much more interested in
trying to score some cheap political points.
1735
I come from one of the prairie provinces. I feel that I have to
apologize to all members in this House who do not live on the
prairies because what the Reform Party has said over and over
again in this debate is that if you do not reside on the
prairies, you have no right to speak to this bill, that you have
lost your franchise, that you do not enjoy full citizenship in
this country.
I can say that the last time I checked, all 301 members of this
House enjoy full citizenship when they come into this House.
They can speak to any matter, regardless of where they live,
regardless of which riding they represent. I say to every
member—
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Let the record show that no Reform member has done what
this person says. We have not said that these people cannot
speak.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows that
this is a debate and members are free to get up and make their
own interpretation of what other members have said without
raising a point of order in the House. I think in the
circumstances perhaps we could hear the hon. member. I may say
that it is getting difficult to hear what the hon. member is
saying and I would appeal for a little order while the
parliamentary secretary concludes his remarks.
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I think that Canadians who
have been listening to the debate this afternoon will have heard
it very, very clearly from the Reform Party, that unless you are
a member of the House of Commons from the prairie provinces, you
have no right to speak in this debate.
All I can say to the members of the Reform Party is shame on
you. It is beneath your party to even entertain such a terrible
thought as that. I say shame on you. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I
will address my remarks through you.
The member for Elk Island accused members on the government side
of acting as, I think he used the words trained seals. He
admonished us to stand on our principles. Again, I would like the
Reform Party to listen to its own advice that it has given so
freely to us.
I have listened to members of the Reform Party on this issue,
and all we hear is the same old ideological line that you get
from the Reform Party on the wheat board bill. It is the same old
right wing stuff we have been hearing for years and years. Would
it not be nice if just once we could hear a refreshing thought, a
new thought, something a little different from the Reform Party
when it comes to C-4. But no, Reform members are the trained
seals. They are the ones who stick to one particular line over
and over again.
There is one more thing. Members of the Reform Party love to
pretend that they are the voice of the west when it comes to the
issue of C-4. I would concede that members of the Reform Party do
speak for some farmers, and I emphasize the word some, but they
do not speak for all prairie farmers.
It is very interesting that in all this debate about the pros
and cons of C-4, the Reform Party never talks about a popular
survey that was taken among farmers. They never refer to an Angus
Reid poll or a Gallup poll or any other reputable poll. When it
comes to support for the wheat board, we will never hear anything
from the Reform members because they know and we all know that
the wheat board enjoys majority support on the prairies.
1740
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. This guy is supposed to be a parliamentary secretary.
Surely he must have some idea of what is in the bill. I wish he
would speak to that.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary is
debating the points that have been raised in debate during the
course of the day. I know that, as in the case of every hon.
member, he will ultimately turn his attention to the points in
the bill and make his remarks appear relevant to the bill.
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party
would like us to believe that a majority of farmers on the
prairies are against the wheat board, that they do not want
anything to do with the wheat board.
If memory serves me correctly, not too long ago there was a
plebiscite on the prairies having to do with barley. If there
ever was an opportunity for farmers on the prairies to embarrass
the government, to support the Reform Party and to show that they
wanted nothing to do with the wheat board, all the farmers had to
do was to vote against the board. In effect they could say “We
do not want barley attached to the board any more”.
What were the results? Notice that the Reform Party in all its
speeches will never say anything about the plebiscite, never a
word. I wonder why. Is it possibly because two-thirds of
prairie farmers showed in that plebiscite that they support the
wheat board? Two-thirds of farmers said “We want our barley
sold through the Canadian Wheat Board”. That was the fact but we
will never hear that from the Reform Party.
The Reform members would never want too many facts to get in the
way of their presentations because facts will kill them every
time. They also say “We are not against the wheat board. All we
want is the right to have dual marketing. We can have the wheat
board but we would also like to sell our grain to other grain
companies”. Is that not nice. If we were to adopt the Reform
Party proposal, imagine how long the wheat board would last. We
have to remember that the wheat board is in partnership with the
federal government. Over $6 billion of its financing is
underwritten by the federal government. That is something no
other grain company has.
Imagine in a dual marketing situation if we had one agency, one
company called the Canadian Wheat Board enjoying the support of
all the taxpayers in the country, and all these other companies
on the other side not having that privilege or honour of the
support of the federal treasury. How long would that situation
last? Two or three minutes. I suspect we would be in the courts
just like that. A situation where one particular company is
favoured and not the others would be untenable.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Have you ever been on a farm?
Mr. John Harvard: Yes, I spent the first 19 years of my
life on a farm. I happen to know a considerable amount about
farming. The hon. member can throw that at me all he likes. I
spent a good many years on a farm and I am very proud of it.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the debate
is getting a bit heated on both sides, but I would appreciate it
if the hon. member would at least address his comments through
the Chair.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member, I notice, had
started to do that having responded to an admonition from the
Chair in that regard.
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, that is the only good
advice I have heard from them all afternoon.
One of the members of the Reform Party said that he wanted me to
address at least one aspect of the bill. Let me do that.
If you listened to the Reform Party and you did not have the
facts, you would quickly believe this changed wheat board would
still be in the hands of the federal government.
1745
The fact is the new wheat board will have 15 directors, 10 of
whom will be elected directly by farmers and only 5 will be
appointed by the government. The last time I checked my
arithmetic 10 constitutes a full majority. I would think that
the directors elected by the farmers would enjoy majority support
on that board. I do not want to hear any more of this nonsense
that the farmers will still not have an opportunity to run the
board. Under Bill C-4 farmers will be put in the driver's seat.
They will run the board. The farmers will run the show and the
federal government will be in partnership with them.
Most farmers on the prairies who are at least acquainted with
Bill C-4 realize this is the opportunity for them to take over
the wheat board and run it to their benefit, not to the benefit
of the federal government and certainly not to the benefit of the
Reform Party.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we have gone along with the
debate for a long period of time and now we hear a number of
Liberals get up to comment on this bill.
It was quite interesting to listen to the parliamentary
secretary. I heard from some of my colleagues on the prairies
that he was booed off the stage by farmers in Saskatchewan. I
can understand why. He did not talk about any amendments until
the end of his speech. I am not from the prairies but I am going
to talk about this bill because it has to do with the rights of
people.
The member for Bourassa also made some comments. He talked
about people acting disgracefully in this House. I was here when
we had the debates on language and schools in Quebec and
Newfoundland. I heard many comments from the Liberals that
Reform members should not be talking about that. I thought that
was very unsatisfactory. I have not heard one Reformer talk
about what somebody from the other side of the House cannot say.
We just want to know that what they say means something.
People should know that my colleague who proposed the amendments
knows a lot about this, as do his colleagues. We are not here to
separate Canada. We are here to make sure that the people of
western Canada, the majority of whom we represent, will get what
they deserve from this government in Ottawa.
I heard that member for Bourassa say that we were attacking him
because he is from Quebec. That is the most shameful thing I
have heard since I have been back in this House for the current
Parliament. I wonder if the reason there are more Bloc members
than Liberals in the province of Quebec is Liberals are making
statements like that. If they wonder why there are more
Reformers in the west than there are Liberals, it it because of
conversations like that of the hon. member for Bourassa in this
House. Using his words, it is disgraceful to hear that kind of
talk in this House.
The Reform Party is here to speak on behalf of farmers in
western Canada, which is why we have the majority of the members
in western Canada. We have been speaking on behalf of farmers
since this party was formed. We have also been listening to the
farmers in western Canada, something that party has not done.
The parliamentary secretary can get booed off stages in the west
any time he wants. We will welcome him back to western Canada
any time at all. He can come out this weekend if he wants to.
We would like to boo him off the stage again.
The member for Simcoe—Grey also made comments. He is from
Ontario and he talks about us being the Bloc in sheep's clothing.
I will tell the member for Simcoe—Grey that they have all the
seats in Ontario right now but they should look at what happened
to their party in western Canada and in Quebec. They should look
at what happened to their party in Atlantic Canada last time. The
Liberal Party has only Ontario left. The Liberals should
understand that if they do not want to listen to the people in
western Canada or in Quebec or in Atlantic Canada, they will lose
Ontario next time.
The people of Canada will get the government they really want in
Canada.
1750
The member for Simcoe—Grey talked about appointing directors.
In some of the amendments here propose a fully elected board. Is
that not unusual? Which one of us would want to invest any money
that the Minister of Finance would agree with this? When having a
board of directors they should all be elected by the people who
are using them.
When we go out and buy stock in the marketplace we are not going
to buy it from a company that appoints its own directors and does
not get them elected by the shareholders. That is what this
party is asking for here. It makes common business sense. I am
surprised the Minister of Finance has not said he agrees with our
amendment and gets his colleagues to change their minds.
Who would agree that this Liberal Party appointing directors
would appoint the people who would know something about wheat?
The Liberals appointed Anna Terrana to the immigration appeal
board last week, a defeated Liberal candidate in the last
election. What does she know about that? But she is on the
board. I do not have to say much more, do I? That one is good
enough, but I can go down a big list. Sharon Carstairs, former
Manitoba Liberal leader, was appointed to the Senate. We can go
on and on about these appointments.
But I think we only have to make one for the average person who
is listening tonight. I am so glad the member for Bourassa got
up, the member for Simcoe—Grey and the parliamentary secretary.
It really makes our point in western Canada that these Liberals
do not understand what is happening in Canada. That is why they
do not win any seats anymore. When the rest of Canadians see it,
they are going to say the same thing.
We have all these amendments put by my colleague. Yet on the
other side they get up and attack us on our right to say what we
want to say and attack us on our right to free speech. But they
do not want to talk about the amendments.
One amendment states that the board of directors should be
responsible for the hiring and firing of the president, not the
minister. The president cannot be beholden to the minister, and
he is also the CEO. I do not think there is one member on the
Liberal side who would agree to go on a board of directors where
an outsider can appoint the president and the CEO. What are they
going to direct? They are just a bunch of puppets. Anybody on
that board is beholden to the minister. Nobody with any right
mind would be appointed to this board and have the
responsibilities that a board had when their final decisions are
not made by the president and CEO but by a minister of this
government.
One could go on and on, but I do not think I really have to.
This party is speaking for the people in western Canada, speaking
for those farmers who do not want to be told by a minister in
Ottawa what their board can or cannot be doing. They want to
make sure all 15 members are elected. That is the way it should
be.
I am sure all those Canadians listening to this debate cannot
understand why the Liberals on that side want to get up and make
their comments about why we are doing certain things, trying to
accuse us of being anti-Quebec in a debate like this. It is just
absolutely ridiculous. I have never hard anything so—
An hon. member: You are anti-Quebec.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the member is saying we
are anti-Quebec. That is absolutely untrue. That member should
come out and visit British Columbia once in a while. He should
come out and visit western Canada. He should know that I also
grew up in the province of Quebec and understand it, perhaps not
as well as he does because he is still there and I grant him
that, but I can tell him there is nobody in this party who is
anti-Quebec. We are pro-Canadian. His cheap attacks on this
party are not going to go very far. He should pay attention as
to why the Bloc in Quebec has more seats than the Liberal Party.
That is what he should be paying attention to and he should be
listening to people in this debate.
We have put some good amendments forward and I think the
Liberals should take the time to read those amendments and when
they vote on them make sure that they pass.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question.
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to agreement made Wednesday,
November 19, 1997, all questions on the motions in Group No. 4
are deemed put and the recorded divisions are deemed requested
and deemed deferred.
The House will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 5.
Pursuant to agreement made Wednesday, November 19, 1997 all
motions in Group No. 5, are deemed proposed and seconded. This
group contains Motions Nos. 20 to 30, 32, 33, 34, 45 and 47.
1755
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-4,
in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 7 the
following:
“(4) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a department within the
meaning of the Financial Administration Act includes the Board
for the purposes of the Auditor General Act.”
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved:
That Bill C-4, in
Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 7 with
the following:
“5. The heading before section 5 and section 5 of the Act
are replaced with the following:
5. The Corporation is incorporated with the object of
marketing grain grown in Canada in the best interests of farmers,
to maximize their returns.”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That
Bill C-4, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 38 and 39 on
page 7 with the following:
“ 5. The heading before section 5 and section 5 of the Act
are replaced with the following:
5. The Corporation is incorporated with the object of
marketing, in the best interests of producers, grain grown within
the designated area.”
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 38 and
39 on page 7 with the following:
“5. Section 5 of the Act and the heading preceding it are by
the following:
5. The object of the Corporation is to secure the best
financial return to the producers of grain in Canada by marketing
the grain in an orderly and coordinated manner in interprovincial
and export trade, in accordance with this Act, on behalf of the
producers of the grain and its operations shall be carried out
with this as its first priority.”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That
Bill C-4, in Clause 6, be amended
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-4,
in Clause 6, be amended by deleting lines 28 to 46 on page 8 and
lines 1 to 11 on page 9.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That
Bill C-4, in Clause 6, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 7 on
page 9.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 17 and
18 on page 9 with the following:
“7. Section 7 of the Act is replaced by the following:”
7. (1) Subject to the regulations, the Corporation shall
sell and dispose of grain acquired by it pursuant its operations
under this Act for such prices as it considers reasonable in
order to fulfil its object set out in section 5.
(1.1) Subsection (1) shall not be interpreted to prevent the
Corporation making a contract to sell a type of grain at a price
that is lower than normal in order to secure other sales of the
same type of grain that will result in the best return to
producers of that type over a period of time.
That Bill C-4, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 25 to
27 on page 9 with the following:
“made elsewhere in this Act, shall be used to maximize the return
on the sale of grain to producers of the wheat by such means as
the Corporation may determine, including the making of additional
payments to the persons who are entitled to receive payments in
respect of the wheat sold in that crop year by the Corporation.”
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-4, in
Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 39 on page 9 with
the following:
“(3) Losses sustained by the Corporation
(a) from its operations under Part III in relation to any pool
period fixed there-under, during that pool period, or
(b) from its operations under this Act under any crop year,
for which no provision is made in any other Part, shall be paid
out of moneys provided by Parliament.”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That
Bill C-4 be amended by adding after line 3, on page 10, the
following:
“ 8.1 Section 9 of the act is amended by adding after
paragraph 9(1)(e) the following:
(f) show such particulars and furnish such information as
requested for the purpose of an audit by the Auditor General of
Canada.
(g) provide such records and information as requested under the
Access to Information Act. The corporation shall continue to be
a “government institution” within the meaning of the Access to
Information Act.”
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved:
That Bill C-4, in
Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 15 on page 10 with
the following:
“10. Section 18 of the act is repealed.”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That
Bill C-4, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 15, on
page 10 with the following:
“ 10. The heading before section 18 and section 18 of the
Act are repealed.”
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-4 be amended by adding after line 40, on page 21, the
following:
“30.1 (1) The Auditor General for Canada Shall examine the
operations of the Corporation over the five year period ending
December 31, 2002 and shall determine whether the Corporation has
met its object as described in section 5, and report to the
Minister thereon no later than September 1, 2003.
(2) The minister shall cause the report to be laid before
both Houses of parliament on one of the first three days on which
the House next sits.
(3) The report shall be deemed referred to such committee of
the House of Commons as is established to consider matters
relating to agriculture.
(4) Unless the committee has reported to the House and the
House as concurred in the report or amended the report and
concurred in it as amended by December 31, 2003 and the report or
amended report is in a form that concludes that the Corporation
has substantially met its object for the five year period, this
Act is repealed on June 30, 2004.
(5) If the Governor in Council determines that the process
described in subsections (1) to (4) has been delayed by emergency
circumstances, the Governor in Council may, by order, defer the
repeal of this Act by a period not exceeding twelve months.”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That
Bill C-4, in Clause 36, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 21 on
page 24.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to get up
and address the group 5 amendments to Bill C-4, the Canadian
Wheat Board Act.
At the outset of my remarks directed at the group 5 amendments,
I would note that a lot of the comments we have just heard from
the government side really indicate, as the member from Vancouver
just indicated, how little the Liberals actually understand their
own piece of legislation. I do not believe the comments over the
past half hour indicate that they have even read the amendments
we are supposed to be debating.
Indeed the parliamentary secretary, when he rose a few minutes
ago, spoke for his 10 minute allotment and never once mentioned
the amendments. All he did was rant and rail against Reform's
trying to raise issues on behalf of Canadian farmers.
As with the other groups, there are a number of amendments in
group 5, about 16 or 17. Obviously no individual speaker trying
to address 16 or 17 substantive amendments to a piece of
legislation can do them justice in a mere 10 minute speech.
However, I will try to direct my comments at some and bring up
some other issues about Bill C-4 that I feel are relevant.
One of the amendments contained in group 5 is Motion No. 22.
This commits the Canadian Wheat Board to operating in the best
interest of farmers. Previously the Canadian Wheat Board has
simply been committed to orderly marketing. A lot of my
colleagues remarked about that during their recent presentations
today and the fact that it follows up on a previous amendment, I
believe Motion No. 1, proposed by my colleague from
Yorkton—Melville, which was to add a preamble to the bill that
would kind of set the stage for the legislation itself and the
fact that the Canadian Wheat Board Act should be there to operate
in the best interest of the farmers who fall under the act. That
would make sense.
Motion No. 22 put forward my me on behalf of the official
opposition would do exactly that. It would require that the
Canadian Wheat Board operate in the best interest of the
producers, not necessarily just to conduct orderly marketing of
grain, which might often be in direct conflict to what would be
in the best interest of producers.
Also in group 5 there are a couple of other motions, 28 and 29,
put forward by my colleague from Yorkton—Melville, which are
also substantive amendments that go toward ensuring that the
Canadian Wheat Board operates in the best interest of farmers.
I would like to digress for a moment and talk about a question
of privilege I raised a while back that was ruled on by the
Speaker. I am not here tonight, especially at this late hour, to
debate, nor do I even have the right to debate, that ruling. I
am quite willing to acknowledge that the Speaker ruled on that
question of privilege, but I would like to raise the issue
because I have had no opportunity up until now to reply to the
minister's statements connected to that question. The minister's
argument for holding a meeting in Regina and having farm groups
come to it over the Christmas break was that he was merely doing
the same as I and my Reform colleagues. He was merely exercising
his MP right to consult with Canadians about a piece of
legislation, which is completely understandable.
However, I submit that is simply hogwash. The farm groups that
went to that meeting told me that he had no intention to consult
on anything concerning the bill.
1800
The intention was to talk about the election of the directors,
how you would go about electing the board of directors. In other
words, once Bill C-4 is enacted, is passed into law, there will
have to be regulations brought forward, as there is for all
legislation once it is passed into law. He was merely there to
try and get input into regulations.
My point, and I still believe this is relevant, is how a
minister of the crown could conduct himself in a fashion that
would lead one to believe the bill is already law. We are not
going to talk about amendments as to how many directors should be
elected versus appointed. We do not want to talk about that. We
want to talk about how to actually accomplish the election.
I do not think that is right, and I believe most farmers do not
think that is right. That is why the majority of the farm
organizations at that meeting walked out in total disgust.
Another farm group, I believe it was the National Farmers Union,
was protesting outside the building where the meeting was being
held.
There is another point I would like to make in the time I have
left. In the debate today on the Group No. 4 amendments, by my
calculations 19 Reform members of Parliament, four Liberals, one
Bloc and a couple of NDP spoke to those amendments. The hon.
member from the Progressive Conservatives says that he spoke. He
did, as I did. He spoke in November when we adjourned the debate
on the Group No. 4 amendments. I was referring to today. I think
my numbers are fairly accurate.
What we are saying on this side is not that the government
members should not be speaking, should not be standing in their
place and addressing the substantive amendments. We are saying
that they should be. Only four of them spoke, and as I already
noted, one of them, the parliamentary secretary, did not talk
about the amendments at all. All he did was rant and rave
against those darn Reformers, how dare they use up time actually
talking about legislation. What a concept, that we are actually
here in this place to talk about legislation. How dare we. It
boggles the mind.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on for hours, but I believe I only have
two and a half minutes left.
I will wrap up the last couple of minutes of my much too brief
talk on Motion No. 32. What would Motion No. 32 accomplish were
it to be passed? Were the hon. members actually to read it, to
try and understand it, to try and understand where western
farmers are coming from on this issue, and actually vote for an
amendment based on common sense versus how they are told to vote,
Motion No. 32 would have the Canadian Wheat Board come under the
auditor general so that he could actually perform an audit.
Interestingly enough, on the front page of today's Hill
Times there is a story on how the auditor general had been
requesting to audit the new CPP fund that is going to be set up
under Bill C-2. As well he wanted to audit the Canadian Wheat
Board under Bill C-4. That is exactly what this Reform amendment
would accomplish.
As well it would bring the Canadian Wheat Board under access to
information so that there would be true transparency. Western
Canadian farmers—quite a number of whom I might add reside right
here in the Reform ranks—could see what the Canadian Wheat Board
was doing. They could put forward access to information requests
and find out exactly what decisions were being made by the
Canadian Wheat Board. I believe that makes sense.
1805
I believe that when it comes to the votes on the report stage
amendments what we are going to find is that the trained seals
over there—and they have already used that term tonight directed
at themselves and I am merely agreeing with them—will vote down
these substantive amendments without giving them any thought
whatsoever merely because somebody over there has told them how
to vote.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is with some trepidation that I rise once again to speak to Bill
C-4. It has been a while since this bill first came before the
House in November. I say it is with trepidation because I sit on
the agriculture and agri-food committee and at that time it was
of the utmost urgency that this piece of legislation come forward
so that it could be passed prior to the Christmas break. Then
the government could look at the proposals for the election of 10
of the 15 members of the board of directors. Now it is February
and I wonder why there was that urgency in committee.
We asked as a committee to once again speak to the minister who
is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. We asked that he
come forward to actually hear what had been said by the numerous
witnesses who shared with us their concerns and their desires
with respect to changes to this legislation. Unfortunately the
minister could not appear before the committee because there was
an urgency to get the bill back to the House.
We also tried to make a comparison between the Ontario Wheat
Board and the Canadian Wheat Board to see if there were other
options available to the government, the directors with respect
to the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. Again there was
not enough time and the bill had to be returned to the House.
I was concerned that we had taken too long by running it into
February and perhaps a bit longer.
I have a lot of respect for government members. I also have
respect for the legislative process. I know full well that
legislation which is passed is not always perfect. Even
legislation which is in place today is amended. Time
unfortunately tires some pieces of legislation and they have to
be amended to bring them up to present standards, in this case
the 21st century.
As legislators and as parliamentarians it behoves all of us,
particularly the government which has put the legislation
forward, to ensure that it is the very best piece of legislation
which can be put forward. Obviously in this case we must ensure
that the customer or the producer is taken care of to the best of
our ability.
There are 48 amendments which have been put forward. Some of
the amendments are good. They can change this legislation to
make it better than what it is right now. I will speak to some
of those amendments.
I have tabled two amendments in this particular grouping. There
are a number of amendments in this grouping which are very good.
I hope the government will listen and that some of these
amendments will be supported by all parties to make the
legislation better.
I am not naive enough to believe that this legislation will not
go through. It will. The government has a majority and it
wishes to put through this legislation. It will go through.
However it could be made better. There are two ways of making it
better. I have tabled two amendments.
1810
One of them is Motion No. 21. Let me clarify that amendment. It
says that the corporation is incorporated with the object of
marketing grain grown in Canada in the best interests of farmers
to maximize their return. That is a good amendment. It does not
necessarily detract from the legislation the government has put
forward, but it adds to the legislation.
I cannot believe the government cannot see that the Canadian
Wheat Board should be there for the producers. Not for the
corporation, not for the Government of Canada, not for the
minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, not for some
yet to be named chief executive officer who is going to be
appointed by government. It is there for the producers. Why not
put it in the legislation that in fact it is there to make sure
that the best returns are going to be generated by that producer.
This amendment clarifies the mandate of the Canadian Wheat
Board. Rather than acting in the best interests of the
corporation, the corporation is incorporated with the object of
marketing grain grown in Canada in the best interests of the
farmers to maximize their return. Does that not make sense? It
is a good amendment. I believe this is self-explanatory. After
all, the Canadian Wheat Board should work on behalf of the
farmers, not the corporation.
A recent historical analysis of the Canadian Wheat Board aptly
summarizes the original intent of the board. Until World War II
the Canadian Wheat Board was a government owned agency with a
mandate to operate in the best interests of the producers.
Its primary mission was to act as a guarantor of floor prices
for wheat, setting a price it was willing to pay for grain, the
initial payments and letting the market determine whether or not
producers sold their crop on the open market or to the wheat
board. Has the Canadian Wheat Board not wandered from its
original mandate? Why? The question must be asked.
There is another amendment I have tabled in this grouping.
Motion No. 33 deals with section 18 of the act. It regards the
repealing directives given by the minister and not the board. It
is integral that this section of the act is repealed because it
gives the GIC the power to give directions to the board with
respect to the manner in which any of its operations, powers and
duties are conducted.
I believe that if the minister responsible for the CWB is truly
going to have a board that is transparent, accountable and
democratic for the board, the board should have complete power
over the operations. If the board does not have the complete
power, then the democratic changes under Bill C-4 are merely
cosmetic. I cannot stress that enough. The board has to have
power over itself in order to be able to provide the necessary
service to Canadian producers.
There are a couple of other areas within this grouping. There
are a number of amendments. As a previous speaker indicated,
unfortunately time is of a premium. All those items cannot be
spoken to as I am sure lots of us would like to do. Again I wish,
I hope and I plead that the government listen to some of these
good amendments because the legislation can be made better.
I find it very interesting that a piece of legislation can be
tabled and can basically alienate everyone. We have heard members
from the Liberal government say that this is a good piece of
legislation and everybody supports it because of the barley
plebiscite, because they have heard these people and they have
heard those people.
The fact of the matter is that I do listen to the people. I
have heard them. Yes there are a number of those people who want
the Canadian Wheat Board exactly the way it is today, no changes
at all. That probably speaks to the fact that we must move into
the 21st century. There have to be changes. There have to be
amendments. There has to be adapting in order to get into a
globalized market system that we have now as opposed to what it
was in 1943.
In saying that, the minister of the Canadian Wheat Board has
somehow taken a piece of legislation and alienated everyone. No
one, even those who want to keep the board, likes this piece of
legislation. Even those who do not want to get rid of the board
do not like this piece of legislation.
The majority of the farmers who want to have some flexibility,
who want to have some options do not like this legislation. That
itself speaks to the need to listen to rational amendments and do
so logically.
Do not do it just because a minister says he wants this piece of
legislation. Listen, read, look and support some of these
amendments. The legislation will be better.
1815
There are two other areas that are dealt with in this grouping.
One is the elimination of the contingency fund. We would support
the elimination of the contingency fund for the simple reason the
contingency fund seems to be a way for the government to get away
from one of the pillars of the Canadian Wheat Board, that is the
initial payments guarantee.
It is also a tax that does not have any parameters to it. It
does not allow the customer, the producer, to say how this is
going to affect them. A contingency fund could be anywhere from
$500 million to $1 billion collected from the same producers, for
what purpose and for what reason. The contingency fund could and
should be done away with. In fact, the government wants to
maintain its control over the board, like it will with the
directors and with the CEO.
The last point is the subject of access to information. There
is only one other organization that has the same restrictions for
access for information and that is CSIS. There is absolutely no
reason why, as a producer owned operation, we should not have
ability to have access to the information of that organization.
If there is nothing to hide then do not hide it. Access to
information should be built into this piece of legislation.
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I wish I had more
time but there is Group No. 6.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to speak on this group of
motions.
Group No. 5 deals with the auditor general and an information
officer being involved in the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Speaker,
I do not know if you have had these types of mornings when you
wake up and feel that everything is going to go your way. As
soon as you have had your breakfast, it does not start to happen.
About three years ago I introduced a private members' bill that
would put the Canadian Wheat Board under the authority of the
auditor general. It was not a votable bill but we did debate it
for a while in the House. As I remember, every Liberal member in
the House at that time was against that bill. They did not want
to have the wheat board audited by the auditor general.
This morning when I picked up the Ottawa paper, I saw that the
auditor general had said he hoped that he would be named auditor
for the Canadian Wheat Board so that he could, under Bill C-4,
work with the reform of the wheat board. That is exactly what I
said four years ago. That is what should have happened. That
would have put accountability into the wheat board and would have
put some kind of trust back into this organization.
A lot of my comments on the wheat board and what I think should
have happened to the wheat board have been heard. I would like
to read a few quotes from somebody who is not involved in the
farming industry, but is a free lance writer in Calgary, George
Koch. I hope some people have picked up the article and read it.
This is what he says:
Farmers have no way of knowing whether the wheat board is doing
its job because it operates in secret. And they have no other
recourse—such as a mediator or an ombudsman—against apparently
incompetent, abusive or fraudulent actions.
Nor, unlike nearly any other participant in aq modern market
economy, do farmers have access to competing services-providers.
That is what farmers want. They want a choice.
Those who skirt the wheat board illegally are taken down by the
armed men in black, clapped in irons and charged with offences
punishable by imprisonment.
This is what farmers object to. They want the same type of
treatment as other farmers in other sections of this country, the
same treatment as in Ontario where they run their own board. He
then goes on to say:
This has happened to more than 100 farmers so far. Clayton
Desrochers, a young farmer in Baldur, Manitoba, who exported his
grain in defiance of the wheat board, recently spent his birthday
in jail. Brian White, the wheat board's director of marketing,
describes people like Mr. Desrochers as `sort of those free men
from Montana”'.
Can you imagine the wheat board making comments like that to a
farmer who is trying to save his farm? This young man wanted to
earn a couple of extra dollars because he could get twice the
price for that barley that he was marketing in the U.S. than what
the wheat board was willing to pay him. Why would a gentleman
lose his farm and go on welfare instead of getting a better price
for it?
This gentleman goes on to say:
The wheat board has been called many things: secretive,
unaccountable, arrogant, ruthless and incompetent. But the
Manitoba case goes to the crux of the matter. If the wheat board
does not, in its own mind and in any meaningful sense, represent
the interests of farmers and cannot be compelled to do so, why
does it exist?”
1820
Why do we have a wheat board if it is not going to represent
farmers? Farmers in the last while have thought that maybe the
court was the direction that they should go to try to get some
fair play into this system, to probably represent their interests
and to make the government and the wheat board change their
attitude toward farmers.
I was astounded today in the House when, during question period,
I heard the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans say in front of this
House that the ruling in B.C. on the native fishing industry
would not pertain to this House, they would not go by the
judgement of the judge or the court, that did not affect this
House. How can that be? Is this House above the law of this
country? It is astounding.
I just want to read to the hon. members a paragraph out of a
paper by Professor Peter Hogg, Q.C.. In his paper he says
“Government Liability Assimilating Crown and Subject” says “It
has always been a basic assumption of Anglo-Canadian public law
that the Crown, that is the government, is subject to the same
laws as everyone else. This was a principal element of Dicey's
Rule of Law. It reflected a political theory that government
ought to be under the law and not just under any law, but the
same law that applies to the ordinary citizen. A special regime
of law for government can lead to tyranny.'
This is exactly what we are experiencing.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member took out of context what was said by the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans today. Clearly what the minister said was
that there—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is certainly not a
point of order.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr.
Speaker, if I have misinterpreted the minister, I wish the
government would explain itself. When a government or an
individual does not abide by the rulings of the court, I think
they say they are not subject to the law. That is what is so
serious about this statement in the House. I know there are
about a hundred court cases right now.
If it should be ruled that these farmers are innocent, the
government can just go out and say “Hey, we do not abide by that
law. You will still be imprisoned. You will still not be able to
market your grain.” What is going on here? This is a democracy.
In the amendments to this bill made by the hon. member for
Prince George, B.C., he has tried to make this bill accountable
by saying that the wheat board should operate under the auspices
of the auditor general and the information act and that they
should be able to have an input into how this bill or this act is
run. That would make farmers happy. That would make the farmers
put their trust back into this wheat board. The majority of
farmers want that option. They want to have the option to market
their grain at the best price that is available.
1825
If that is not feasible in this bill, I think it will become
more divisive and there will be more farmers going against the
wheat board. It will probably destroy itself. When I about four
years ago did my first press conference, I said that my farmers
came with the complaints that they had against the wheat board.
All they wanted was for the government or some agency to look
into those allegations to see whether they were right or wrong.
They did not want to get rid of the wheat board, they wanted the
wheat board to be made accountable.
I asked the solicitor general to do it and members know what
happened with that. The farmers laid complaints with the local
RCMP. Their complaints were stopped further up the line for some
reason or other.
They had evidence that they had been deducted freight and
elevation and cleaning charges on their grain to Thunder Bay when
it never went to Thunder Bay. It just went right across the
border about 10 miles into the U.S.
Not only that, but now we find out not only were they originally
charged, they were also charged on the buy-back, again freight to
Thunder Bay and cleaning and elevation charges. Those farmers
have actually lost $40 a tonne on their grain which is over $1 a
bushel.
That is why we, as the Reform Party, want to make the wheat
board accountable. We do not want to destroy the wheat board,
but we want to make it accountable and answerable to the farmers.
What is wrong with electing 15 directors instead of 10? What is
wrong with the farmers being allowed to hire their own CEO and
have that board run the way they like it? What is wrong with
that? Is that not the way a democracy is supposed to run?
It scares the daylights out of me when I see one part of our
industry being subjected to this type of treatment. They do not
have the recourse that other industries have.
Some of the automotive dealers in my constituency said “Jake,
if you don't stop this nonsense that farmers can't sell their
grain for the best price, we're going to start objecting to this
issue. If I could not sell my vehicles for the best price or if
I could not take in a car in trade that somebody else wanted to
get rid of, we would not abide by the law. We would be taking
civil disobedience.”
We do not want to see that. We want to have an accountable,
democratic system in this country that treats everybody fairly.
That is all that farmers in western Canada want. They want to be
efficient. They want to be accountable. They want to pay their
taxes. They want to have a livelihood that puts food on their
table. They want to be treated fairly.
When we look at the efficiencies and the productivity of our
agriculture industry, there are none that will come second to us
in the world. They have done it under circumstances where they
have not had the freedom to get the best price for their
products.
What would they be able to accomplish if they had that
opportunity to market their grain at the best price that was
offered to them? What would they not be able to do when they had
a wheat board that was accountable to them, that would look after
their interests, that if there were objectionable things going
on, if there were irregularities, somebody like the auditor
general would look into it.
When I asked the auditor general four years ago to give me an
idea how much interest was charged on the debt that taxpayers
were probably servicing, he could not do that.
There was no way that he could access the books of the Canadian
Wheat Board to see what the interest was. What I found
unbelievable when I talked to the auditor general and wanted to
know why he could not access the bookssas that he did not know
but that he could tell me one thing, that he still had to sign
the audit of the Canadian Wheat Board as being correct. Even if
he could not look into the books, his signature had to go on that
document that it is accurate.
I can see why the auditor general would come out this morning
and say that he wished he would be named auditor of the Canadian
Wheat Board. That is the direction to go. That is what the
amendments in this piece of legislation say. I urge every member
in this House to vote for the revamping of this wheat board with
the auditor general and the information officer to be part of it.
1830
The Speaker: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed
to have been moved, pursuant to the order made earlier today.
* * *
MIDDLE EAST
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to point out that we are doing something
different in Canada. We are the only country which, before
taking a decision on this matter, is consulting the House of
Commons. In Great Britain the house was informed of the decision
without debate. The same thing happened in other countries.
There was no debate in the United States. In Canada we will have
a debate tonight. I will listen to the views expressed in the
House of Commons. I will report to cabinet tomorrow and a
decision will be made.
Tonight we have come together to debate an issue of vital
national and international importance. On such occasions the
elected representatives of our people must be heard. People have
to know where we stand. I look forward to hearing the views of
my parliamentary colleagues. They will help us to make an
informed decision.
I believe the responsibility of Canada tonight is solemn and
sober. It is to show the strength of purpose of the
international community and to stand firm in the face of
provocation.
The government is adding Canada's voice to the international
chorus calling for Saddam Hussein to comply fully with UN
security council resolution 687 and all other security council
resolutions passed with respect to Iraq since 1991. Iraq must do
so or face very serious consequences.
Tonight I want to lay out clearly before the people of Canada
why we believe their government should support military action if
Saddam Hussein does not comply. This gives us no pleasure.
Canada is not a nation which rushes to embrace the use of force.
We do not lightly endorse military action. For us it is always
the last resort. Ours is a history of working to prevent
conflicts and to promote peaceful resolutions when armed conflict
does break out. Indeed, a diplomatic resolution is far and away
our preferred resolution to this crisis.
At the same time Canada has never been just a bystander in the
world. We have been an active citizen of the world and with
citizenship comes responsibility.
On fundamental issues of peace and security we have never
hesitated to take sides. Thousands of Canadians have died this
century to prove that point. It is why we joined NATO. It is
why we helped to draft and sign the universal declaration of
human rights 50 years ago. It is why we helped to bring about an
international treaty banning land mines just two months ago.
[Translation]
If there is one thing Canadians cannot abide, that is any
flaunting of the clearly expressed wish of the United Nations
Security Council. And if there is one question on which the
Security Council has spoken out clearly, it is the threat Saddam
Hussein represents to his neighbours, and the entire world, with
his weapons of mass destruction, his nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons.
Given his past record, this can be of no surprise to anyone.
What kind of leader would engage voluntarily in a reign of terror
against his own people?
1835
What civilized mission can be carried out with the massacre of
tens of thousands of Kurds and the total destruction of entire
villages? What logic was there in an invasion of Kuwait, if it
brought down on his country the most powerful military alliance
forged since the second world war?
What conclusion does this lead us to about the humanity of a
man who is again prepared to expose his people to this risk, merely
to protect the terrible activities he is involved in to develop
chemical and biological weapons?
We do not, of course, have any guarantee that a strong and
decisive intervention will put an end to the threat to
international security Saddam represents.
We can conclude from his past actions, however, that if we do not
intervene, if we do not stand up to him, our inaction will
encourage him to commit other atrocities, to prolong his reign of
terror over his own people, his neighbours, and the entire world.
There is no doubt about it.
Saddam's determination to develop and use weapons of mass
destruction, chemical warfare in particular, is well documented.
Anyone doubting the serious character of the threat this man
represents has only to recall how he turned these weapons against
his own people. Equally well documented are his ongoing efforts to
block the work of UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission
created to ensure compliance with Security Council Resolution 687.
[English]
The purpose of the resolution is clear, that Saddam must
unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the
destruction, removal or rendering harmless of his weapons of mass
destruction. Economic sanctions against Iraq will remain in
place until UNSCOM declares that he has done so.
This was a condition of the ceasefire that ended the gulf war.
Saddam agreed in writing that UNSCOM would be given freedom of
entry and access in its inspections. From the very outset he has
failed to honour this agreement. The denial of access to
so-called presidential sites is just the latest example.
At this point I would like to pay tribute to the incredible job
which has been done by UNSCOM in the face of continued
provocation. In these brave men and women, experts in their
fields, Saddam has confronted determined adversaries. Through
seven years of lies and physical threats they have carried out
brilliant detective work. They have uncovered the truth that his
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs were much
further advanced than we feared or than Saddam will admit.
Thanks to UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency,
Saddam's well funded and advanced nuclear weapons program is
essentially no more. Thanks to UNSCOM all of Iraq's known
chemical weapons and facilities have been destroyed. Thanks to
UNSCOM all of Iraq's known facilities and equipment associated
with biological weapons have been destroyed. UNSCOM has overseen
the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons and 480,000 litres of
live chemical agents.
Anyone who doubts the seriousness of this threat should remember
UNSCOM's discovery that Iraq has produced 8,400 litres of
anthrax. One hundred kilograms of anthrax released from the top
of a tall building in a densely populated area could kill
millions of people.
1840
[Translation]
Saddam's lies and deceit and especially his obstructions
prevent the special commission from verifying whether Iraq has
indeed destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction. The
international community must have the assurance of the special
commission, but it gives no credence to Saddam's promises.
For seven years he has lied, resisted and tried to hide the
truth. He has had every opportunity to comply with international
agreements and his obligations, but nothing has succeeded in
getting him to comply voluntarily, not even the potential lifting
of the economic sanctions that are hurting the people of Iraq.
This deadly game of hide-and-seek has gone on long enough.
Let me say that the government still favours a diplomatic
solution and, to this end, we are remaining in contact with our
allies. Military intervention is not imminent. Make no mistake,
Saddam's behaviour to date indicates that he will not honour
diplomatic solutions so long as they are not accompanied by a
threat of intervention. The least sign of weakness or hesitation
on our part will be interpreted as incitement.
[English]
That is why, if it comes to that, we believe a military strike
against Iraq would be justified to secure compliance with
security council resolution 687 and all other security council
resolutions concerning Iraq.
We believe that Canada cannot stand on the sidelines in such a
moment. Our allies, led by the United States, have asked that we
support such a mission. They have asked for military support,
not for combat troops. However, it would mean a Canadian
presence in the action against Saddam Hussein. It would mean our
armed forces would support, in a material way, the actions of
this multinational initiative. It would mean that when and if
every other means fails and action is taken to enforce the will
of the security council, Canada will be counted. Not on the
sidelines. Not in isolation.
That is the decision we must make. I believe the choice is
clear. I believe it is a choice dictated by the responsibilities
of international citizenship, by the demands of international
security and by an understanding of the history of the world in
this century.
Tonight we will hear from members of all parties. Their views
are important and will help guide the cabinet tomorrow in its
decision.
Moments like this are never easy. They require deep commitment,
honest evaluation and respect for all views, even those with
which we do not agree. Important decisions are seldom easy. All
we can hope is that we face them with the wisdom and
understanding that they deserve and with the commitment to see
them through.
1845
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to begin by defining the issue before the
House as the official opposition sees it. The issue is whether
Canada should accept or reject the invitation by the United
States to participate in possible military actions in the Middle
East, actions to stop terrorism and the production of weapons of
mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.
The issue is not whether we support a maximum diplomatic effort
to constrain Saddam Hussein. Every member of the House supports
a maximum diplomatic effort. The issue is what to do if
diplomatic efforts fail, whether then to participate in a
military action.
I am sure we will find by the end of this evening the issue can
be looked at from the political perspective. It can be looked at
from the economic and military perspectives. But in all these
considerations the official opposition wants to ensure that it is
the human and moral dimensions that we keep uppermost in our
minds.
If Saddam Hussein persists in the production of chemical and
biological weapons and eventually uses them, the cost in terms of
human life and suffering is incalculable.
The hon. member from Red Deer and others will dwell on this
point a little later but let me mention just one chilling
statistic. At the point when Saddam Hussein resumed his refusal
to co-operate with the UN special commission, its inspectors were
searching for 25 warheads armed with 40 gallons of toxins such as
anthrax and botulinum, each of which can kill up to a million
people.
If we have any doubts of Saddam Hussein's preparedness to use
such weapons, as the prime minister has already said, we should
remember that he used chemical and biological weapons against the
Iranian forces in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. He used poison
gas against his own people, the Kurds in the north, immediately
after losing the gulf war.
There is no doubt about it in our mind. Leaving Saddam Hussein
unchecked would exact an enormous toll in human suffering. At
the same time, of course, military action to constrain Saddam
Hussein will also exact a human toll.
It was observed in the House by then Prime Minister Mulroney
during the 1991 debate that Saddam Hussein had demonstrated
limitless tolerance for the suffering of his own people. He can
be counted upon to use women and children as human shields to
protect possible targets.
If military action is undertaken, the lives of military
personnel themselves will be jeopardized. Canadian lives could
be lost if it is the decision of parliament that Canada should
participate militarily.
The human and moral side of the issue must be kept uppermost in
our minds. I am personally convinced that the only moral
justification for taking human life is if it can be demonstrated
that the taking or sacrificing of some lives may save more lives
than otherwise. I think that is the only moral justification for
capital punishment. I think it is the only moral justification
for taking lives through military action. That is really the
moral issue with which we are dealing tonight.
Does the risk of loss of lives of innocent Iraqi civilians and
the men and women of the armed forces of Canada and our allies
outweigh the loss of lives on the part of innocent civilians and
military people down the road if we do nothing?
I would be remiss if I did not frankly address the
unsatisfactory form of the debate on the motion before us. For
the debate to be meaningful and to provide real guidance to the
people of Canada and the government, this is what should have
happened.
First, we should have had a full briefing of all members of the
House by the prime minister, by the foreign affairs minister and
by the defence minister with an open question period to follow to
get all the facts out on the table before conducting any debate.
This is simply common sense. You get all the facts out through
cross-examination before you debate them. Why the rules and
procedures of the House continue to defy simple common sense
concepts like that is frankly beyond me.
Then you commence the debate. Not debate on a vague motion like
the one before us, but a debate on a real position opposed by the
government but subject to amendment by members of House and
subject to a vote at the end of the day.
1850
The prime minister excuses this lack of leadership by saying
that he wants to consult first before putting forward a position.
The more statesmanlike thing would be to put forward a position
which represents the very best judgment of the government and
then be willing to amend it or to change it on the basis of
consultation and points made by members of the House.
In the absence of strong leadership from the government it falls
upon members on this side of the House to fill the vacuum. We
are calling upon members of all opposition parties to make a
contribution, and I mean that sincerely.
Given the historic concern of the social democrats in the House
about the human and social consequences of military action, we
expect members of that persuasion to make a major contribution
from that perspective.
Given the fact that the Progressive Conservatives were in power
at the time of the last gulf conflict, we expect Conservative
members to make a significant contribution by drawing upon that
experience, what went right and what went wrong, and applying it
to this situation.
As far as the official opposition is concerned, our principal
contribution will be this. We have insisted in committee and in
debate in the House since 1993 that parliament should be
developing clear criteria to assist it in deciding how Canada
should respond to requests for our participation in multilateral
military operations to establish and maintain peace in the world.
We raised this demand in relation to our participation in Bosnia
and we raise it again tonight.
In our judgment there are at least six criteria which should be
satisfied before Canada commits itself to responding to requests
for participation in multilateral military initiatives to prevent
and remove threats to peace.
First, parliament should be satisfied that there is a serious
international threat and that diplomatic efforts to resolve it
have failed.
In the case before us there is no question in our mind that
Saddam Hussein and his weapons production capability constitute a
serious international threat and that to date diplomatic efforts
are not solving the problem, so this criterion is satisfied.
Second, parliament should be satisfied that so far as possible
there is multinational support for military action.
In this case there is multinational support from our key allies,
in particular the United States and the United Kingdom, so this
criterion is satisfied.
Third, the government should be satisfied that there is a
workable plan and strategy for military action to resolve the
issue. We expect the government to assure parliament that there
is such a plan and strategy. The government has not yet provided
evidence along that line. We trust that it will do so before
this evening is over. This criterion remains to be satisfied.
Fourth, parliament must be satisfied that any plan for military
action includes a well defined mission and a clear definition of
Canada's role. We expect the government to provide something on
this mission definition tonight. It has not yet done so. Perhaps
it will do so before the end of the evening. This criterion
remains to be satisfied.
Fifth, parliament must be satisfied that the role expected of
Canada is within our fiscal and military capabilities. We expect
the government to give evidence along that line tonight. So far
this criterion remains to be satisfied.
Sixth, parliament must be assured that there is a command and
control structure satisfactory to Canada. Again we expect the
government to provide some information on this structure. It has
not yet done so. This criterion also remains to be satisfied.
Given that the seriousness of the threat is established and the
need for action is clear, this is the advice of the official
opposition to the government on this matter. There are five
points.
(1) Canada has an obligation to support its allies in stopping
terrorism by Saddam Hussein.
(2) Our support should be military as well as moral and
political.
(3) The focus of any military action should be on putting
Saddam Hussein's weapons factories out of business and allowing
UN inspectors to do their work.
(4) As parliamentarians we should make the political decision
to support. We should then let the defence department make the
recommendations concerning the form and scope of our military
support.
1855
(5) It is important at the outset of these types of things to
be clear on why one is doing what one is doing. The reason for
supporting military action is that it is our moral obligation and
in our national interest in stopping terrorism and the production
of weapons of mass destruction.
In closing, I return to the point that for this debate to be
meaningful it should end with a vote on a motion proposing the
course of action. In that the government has failed to present
such a motion, I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the
House to revert to Government Orders and to continue to sit
beyond the daily time of adjournment to consider an amendable and
votable motion to read as follows:
That this House support diplomatic and if necessary military
action by our allies to stop terrorism and the production of
weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.
The Speaker: The hon. member has asked for unanimous
consent to put a motion. Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: He does not have consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is always difficult to know what to say in a debate on the
advisability of taking part in an armed conflict. We would all
wish it had not come to this.
A peaceful resolution through diplomatic means must always be
everyone's objective. Quebeckers and Canadians can be proud of
their historic contribution in this regard. Canada's tradition has
always been to try to find peaceful solutions to international
conflicts. The Canadian approach has always favoured diplomatic
solutions to crises.
As proof, I would point to the interventions of Lester B.
Pearson in the Suez crisis, for which he was awarded the Nobel
Peace Price, and the numerous peacekeeping missions of the Canadian
Armed Forces since 1990 in Bosnia and Haiti, as well as the
Canadian presence in Egypt and Cyprus in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, the solution does not strike me as so obvious
or straightforward in the case of Iraq. There could be a war on
the horizon. Yesterday, the President of the United States called
the Prime Minister to ask for Canada's support in its military
operation against Iraq. A White House spokesman even said there
was agreement that Canada and the United States should act together
if force became necessary.
Here in Ottawa, a National Defence spokesman indicated that
the Canadian army was getting ready for possible involvement with
a view to providing logistical support to American forces.
It will be recalled that, after the Gulf War in 1991, the
United Nations Security Council ordered Iraq to destroy all its
chemical, bacterial and, if it had any, nuclear weapons. The
international community obviously wants Iraq to comply with the UN
resolutions imposed on that country, particularly resolution 687
regarding the elimination of all its weapons of mass destruction.
In our view, Iraq, with Saddam Hussein as its leader, still
constitutes a potential threat to world peace, particularly if he
is left with the capacity to manufacture or develop chemical or
bacteriological weapons. Iraq's refusal to allow UN inspectors to
do their job therefore threatens international security.
1900
The international community, needless to say, is at the end of
its tether with Iraq's lack of co-operation. The Americans and the
British could therefore prepare to take military action against
Iraq.
The issue for Quebec and Canadian parliamentarians in this
House is not whether to support the UN resolutions or to condemn
Iraq. It is, rather, how to apply the UN resolutions and put an
end to the danger threatening the entire Middle East, if not the
planet as a whole.
The Bloc continues to favour a diplomatic solution. We
believe that not all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted.
These diplomatic efforts are favoured by France, Belgium, Italy and
Russia at the moment.
All of the players in the international community are hoping
for a diplomatic solution to this crisis. Canada must intervene
not only with the United Nations, but also with NATO and with the
Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
The government of Saddam Hussein must, however, give UN
inspectors responsible for Iraqi disarmament unrestricted access to
the 60-odd sites considered sensitive, which Baghdad is currently
denying them.
Should the diplomatic efforts currently underway with Baghdad
fail, we in the Bloc feel Canada must insist that the military
strike against Iraq be approved by the UN security council.
Since the UN is carrying out its inspection and monitoring
missions in Iraq under Security Council resolutions, if a
diplomatic solution is unattainable, it would be desirable for that
same body to be the one to authorize military action.
Before there is any military intervention in Iraq, we in the
Bloc Quebecois believe a UN Security Council debate ought to be
held. Generally, the UN Security Council's procedure for
addressing problems of peace and security is a two-phase process.
First, if there is a threat to international peace, the UN
Security Council can pass economic sanctions which all members are
bound to apply. That is why there is an embargo against Iraq, and
the lifting of those sanctions is linked to the unconditional
destruction of all those chemical weapons.
Second, if the sanctions are not enough, then the Council can
decide on military action, as it has done on two occasions, the
Korean War in 1950 and the Gulf War in 1991.
All of the actions against Iraq, then, were taken in keeping
with Security Council resolutions. We in the Bloc are of the
opinion that we ought to do the same thing this time, because it is
important that the greatest number of countries speak out in
support of any intervention, any military intervention in
particular. Such support carries indisputable moral weight. It is
also the only way to get the Middle Eastern countries involved, the
Arab countries in particular.
Let us think of the importance of Russian support. Russian
President Boris Yeltsin delivered two stern warnings this past week
to the effect that an American attack could set off a world war.
Again this morning, President Yeltsin repeated his support for a
diplomatic solution to the Iraqi crisis.
An American military offensive outside the UN framework could
also result in strong Arab sympathy for Iraq. This is certainly not
what we want to see happen. It is therefore important to ensure
that the diplomatic process takes its course and that the Security
Council debates the issue and is kept informed of any proposal for
military intervention, which we do not reject out of hand.
Yesterday, US President Bill Clinton asked the Prime Minister
for Canadian participation in a military operation against Iraq,
such participation to be restricted to transportation and search
and rescue teams. As far as we know, the United States has
apparently not called for soldiers or fighter aircraft.>
1905
Canadian military participation of an offensive nature seems
out of the question for the time being. It is nonetheless
participation in an armed intervention.
Throughout discussions about the crisis, Canada did not really
show the leadership that was expected. Instead it took a
wait-and-see approach. The Liberals are not keeping up the
historic role that Canada played internationally, as I mentioned,
in the time of Lester B. Pearson, and still plays, and that it
played more recently through the initiative of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs with respect to the land mines treaty.
Canada could have consulted its European allies in the
Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe and in NATO with
a view to exploring various diplomatic solutions. Instead, the
Canadian government decided to wait to hear from the Americans.
It seems to me that the Liberals must keep up the tradition
that was established and maintained by Pearson and that inspired
the more recent stand taken by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Today, the Prime Minister told us that he wanted to consult us
before announcing Canada's position in this matter.
This was the approach and the sort of debate we had in recent
years on the issue of Haiti, of Bosnia, and of allowing cruise
missiles over Canadian territory.
These initiatives, I think, give all parliamentarians the
opportunity to take part in the debate and to contribute to a
solution with suggestions to the government to enable it to take
the most enlightened stand.
The Prime Minister should in this case consult us, but more
importantly, we should vote once the government has taken a
position. On this subject, I recall the events of November 1990
and January 1991, again in connection with Iraq, when twice in this
House—and I remember that the Liberal Party insisted on having a
vote at the time so all parliamentarians could have a say and the
government could have the results of a vote by all parliamentarians
in this House before any armed intervention took place.
I think the arguments that were valid in November 1990 and
January 1991 remain valid today, have the same moral value, one
that will make Canada's position clear to its allies.
The House should therefore, in our opinion, be once again
consulted and hold a formal vote on the position before the start
of any war, if this were unfortunately the only solution—and I
think everyone agrees.
Today's consultation is, in the opinion of the Bloc, merely
the first step in a process that will clearly establish a position
on Canada's involvement in action against the regime of Saddam
Hussein.
In conclusion, we must take the diplomatic approach, consult
our allies, propose courses of action, involve the United Nations
Security Council and, should military intervention be necessary, it
would be eminently desirable to have it carried out under the aegis
of the United Nations.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
question of ongoing military and humanitarian crisis in Iraq
merits very careful consideration, very careful consideration by
all of us here as parliamentarians and very careful consideration
by the Canadian people as a whole. Let us be clear, Canadians
are a proud people with a distinguished history of providing
leadership in seeking peaceful solutions to the world's penchants
and the world's problems.
Let me say at the outset that the Canadian government has a duty
to ensure a policy that is first consistent with our status as a
sovereign, independent state. In that regard, it was a cause of
concern to a lot of Canadians to hear the U.S. secretary of state
today pronounce what the position of Canada was in regard to
massive military intervention in Iraq.
1910
Second, the Government of Canada has a responsibility to adopt a
policy that can command the broadest possible degree of support
within the international community.
Third, and perhaps most important, the government has a
responsibility to adopt a policy which will be truly effective in
solving the problem that confronts the world community and the
people of Iraq today.
The view of the New Democratic Party is that massive military
aggression against Iraq as proposed by the United States is
insupportable on several counts. It is not now receiving and is
unlikely to engender a broad measure of support internationally.
It will result in the almost certain death or maiming of large
numbers of innocent civilians.
Before elaborating on the reasons why we believe Canada should
refuse to participate in this massive military bombing, I want to
make two things very clear. First, the New Democratic Party
fully acknowledges that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and a
human rights abuser. Let there be no doubt about that. Second,
the New Democratic Party is solidly on record as supporting,
unequivocally, those UN resolutions which forbid Iraq from
acquiring, manufacturing or using biological or chemical weapons.
That any nation should obtain or deploy such weapons of mass
destruction is deplorable. It is unacceptable. It is truly
morally repugnant.
In our view—and I think we would do well to keep this in
mind—the manufacture, proliferation or use of nuclear weapons is
equally evil and unconscionable. Let us not lose sight of the
global security threat and the global challenge which we face in
that regard.
I want to outline at least five reasons why the New Democratic
Party opposes the massive military action proposed by the United
States. Let us be clear that the U.S. secretary of state has
described the intervention as being substantial, sustained and
heavy. That is the plan.
First, the diplomatic efforts to bring a peaceful resolution to
this crisis simply have not been fully exhausted. Depicting the
Iraqi leader as a tyrant and a despot, however accurate, however
soul-satisfying it may be, does nothing to move us toward a solid
resolution. In fact, it can be said that it detracts from our
objective and, indeed, from our obligation.
What is our obligation? Let me suggest that our obligation is
finding a way to secure Iraq's compliance with UN weapons
inspections and the destruction of its deadly chemical and
biological weapons, while at the same time alleviating the
suffering of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who are
victims of a prolonged campaign of economic sanctions.
Let us not forget that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians
have already died. It is estimated by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations that one child dies every 10
minutes today in Iraq as a result of those sanctions.
I believe that the world wants Canada to show the kind of
leadership that it did on the land mines ban issue. Let us
remind ourselves, and do so with considerable pride, that Canada
stepped out in front. Canada seized the challenge. Canada
provided the leadership, not because the United States of America
was urging us to do so, but in defiance of the United States, to
put in place a land mines treaty ban.
I was delighted to be able to stand in this House and
congratulate the Government of Canada for providing that
leadership. I believe that the world wants Canada to once again
provide that kind of leadership; not sit out in the shadows or
hide in the weeds, but move into this vacuum to provide that kind
of leadership again.
Canadians expect no less of us.
1915
That requires that we be far more aggressive in pursuing a
policy whereby concessions of weapons inspection and destruction
by Iraq would be met with a reasonable and enforceable set of
goals and timetables for easing and eventually eliminating
sanctions.
Surely the proposal advanced by the Russians that would allow
for inspection of presently restricted presidential sites is
worthy of careful consideration.
In return for demonstrations of goodwill, for concrete measures
of progress, Iraq ought to be permitted to sell more oil in order
to obtain food and medical supplies necessary for the very
survival of the men, women and children in that country. Let us
not forget that in the years after the second world war our
objective was to limit the size and capabilities of the German
and Japanese armed forces, not to deliberately promote famine and
disease among the citizens of those countries.
Second, I believe that Canadians favour truly multilateral
solutions to such international crises.
[Translation]
It is wrong to claim that the United States is heading a large
international coalition. France and Russia, which sit on the UN
Security Council, oppose the American proposal of military
intervention. All 22 members of the League of Arab States also
oppose it.
The vast majority of members of the international community
oppose such action. Why? Because a military operation in the
region could have unexpected and undesirable consequences.
The military offensive headed by the United States shows how
important it is for the United Nations to have a standing army, one
that is truly multilateral and independent.
[English]
Third, military aggression is unlikely to meet any of its
intended strategic or political objectives. Surely it is notable
that even former U.S. gulf war commander General Norman
Schwarzkopf, known as Stormin' Norman, has voiced grave doubts
about the wisdom of such an air attack.
U.S. led strikes may in fact merely solidify Saddam Hussein's
grip on power, unite his population and only temporarily
interfere with his weapons building program. Therefore we remain
profoundly sceptical of the long term utility of such military
intervention, particularly when we weigh the potential risks of
heightened instability in the area.
Fourth, the claims of so-called pinpoint bombing and the
limitation of collateral civilian damage is nonsensical military
doublespeak. These euphemisms simply conceal the very real
likelihood of massive loss of life and the maiming of thousands
of civilians.
I want to share briefly an excerpt from a letter that arrived in
my office today. It reads, “the smart bombs won't be any
smarter this time”. There are those who support military action
over diplomatic initiatives.
If it is indeed true that Saddam Hussein is stockpiling and
concealing chemical and biological weapons, as it appears is the
case, it is truly terrifying to imagine the impact that targeting
missiles at such sites could have. The resultant release and the
spread of lethal chemical substances into the surrounding area is
surely too high a price to pay in human terms for the achievement
of highly questionable results.
Fifth and finally, Canada should be seeking to adopt a position
on this question which contributes to the reduction of
international tensions instead of inflaming them.
Our goal should surely be to broker peaceful solutions in the
instance of such international crises. Canada should stake out a
position independent of our southern neighbour, as it did so
courageously in the instance of land mines.
1920
I ask the House, is it beyond our imagination to conceive of a
solution to this impasse which does not involve massive loss of
life and damage to vital Iraqi infrastructure? I ask members of
the House to reflect on the 600,000 Iraqi children which the
United Nations tells us have died since the imposition of
sanctions five years ago.
We read in today's press of the American objective to knock out
the electricity generating stations which provide power to the
people of Iraq. I ask my colleagues to reflect on the impact
such an event recently had on the lives of so many of our
constituents. Is this the kind of hardship that we are determined
to inflict on a civilian population that has already endured so
much suffering and pain both as a result of the policies of its
own government and as a result of the regime of sanctions?
In conclusion, wise heads are right to counsel caution and
careful reflection. This evening I implore the Prime Minister to
intensify our efforts to achieve a diplomatic solution and to
find through peaceful means a resolution to this terrible
standoff. Canada should surely be on the side of those who seek
to resolve this crisis through negotiation and common sense.
There is nothing to be gained in the long run through a strategy
of provocation and sabre rattling.
Let me finish by citing the words of another Canadian who wrote
to me today: “The closing years of the millennium should not
see yet another major armed conflict added to this century's
baleful record. As a respected middle power, Canada should adhere
to its well recognized role of peacekeeper in world affairs”.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, we are
very keen to finally have a debate this evening in Parliament on a
decision that is a very solemn one in the life of a country, a
decision that weighs heavily on the shoulders of those who must
directly or indirectly make decisions putting other people's lives
at risk.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party are very concerned by
the developments in this conflict, especially since over a week and
a half or so ago the American president had a conversation with the
Prime Minister of Canada. As soon as the parliamentary session
resumed, I called on the government to permit this Parliament, and
through it the people of Canada, to participate fully in the debate
and in the decision on Canada's role in this potential conflict.
I wrote to the Prime Minister over a week ago requesting a
statement in the House of Commons to the members and to the people
of Canada on his government's position. I wanted him to share with
us not only the information available to his government, but also
the positions held by our allies and, to be very specific, the
statement made by the American Secretary of State, Madeleine
Albright, who was repeating at every opportunity, and I quote:
“Time is running out”.
1925
Those familiar with diplomatic language and the way
governments work were left with no choice but to wonder what these
words meant and to try to understand their impact.
I therefore took the trouble not just to write to the Prime
Minister, but also to telephone him on Sunday, the day before
Parliament resumed, to ask him for two things: my first request was
that his government make a statement in the House of Commons, and
my second request, consistent with the recommendations of a
parliamentary committee, was that a joint committee of the House
and Senate be created so that we could hear from the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, and the
individual responsible for the military direction of Canadian
troops, the Chief of Defence Staff, in an appropriate context.
Unfortunately, we met with a blank wall, a flat no.
Today, I regret to say, we find ourselves in a situation I can
only describe as ridiculous, in which the government tells us it
cannot take a position until it has heard from the Parliament of
Canada.
Are we to conclude from this that the Government of Canada
therefore had no position on this conflict, and still has none?
Have things become so absurd that the government elected by the
Canadian people, which has traditionally played an important role
in these matters, has no position on this particular matter so far?
If that is the case, things have reached a sorry pass. We have
certainly slipped in our international stature.
[English]
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada would much prefer a
peaceful and diplomatic solution to this international crisis. It
is not repetitive to say it today. It is not insignificant to
say that. We should say that and repeat it as many times as we
feel necessary, as a country and as citizens of this planet.
If this proves impossible because of Saddam Hussein's refusal to
allow the UN to perform its duties, then we believe that Canada
should fully support, under the authority of the United Nations,
military action by our traditional allies to destroy Iraqi
weapons capable of killing millions of people. That is the
position we take.
The President of the United States spoke with the Prime Minister
more than a week and a half ago. I asked the Prime Minister at
the time to make a full statement to the House of Commons, to
explain the position of his government, to share with us the
information that he had, to go further, to actually help us
interpret the position of other countries that play a major role.
For example, Madeleine Albright, the American secretary of
state, has said repeatedly “Time is running out”. For any
sensible person familiar with diplomacy and with the means at the
disposal of countries, this was a very significant statement.
Yet we were left in the dark as to its significance. Even now
this government has not offered any light in regard to what
exactly the Americans meant.
The government has waited to this day to make its position
clear. We have reached a point of total absurdity. If I
understand the government correctly, the government has said it
wants to hear from the House of Commons before it takes a
position. If we understand it correctly, Canada in this whole
conflict has had no position, no position until this day? In
international affairs it is a very sad moment for Canada to
discover that, given the leadership role Canada played in 1991 in
influencing the American administration to work under the
authority of the UN, we have now abandoned any attempt at
influence.
1930
More than a week ago, I asked the Prime Minister, through a
letter and a phone call, whether he would not make a statement to
the House and whether he would not strike a parliamentary
committee to hear from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the
Minister of National Defence and the chief of defence staff. We
even made this recommendation because it is consistent with the
committee report filed in 1994, supported by a majority of
Liberals on the committee, that stated very clearly that in these
circumstances there should be a standing committee to whom the
Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence
and the chief of defence staff should report. This is nothing
new. This report was in 1994. The government just thumbed its
nose at this Parliament and its own majority on the committee and
chose to break another promise.
There are many questions in regard to this whole debate. We
have to ask what is at stake. What is the best way of dealing
with this dangerous situation? What forces and facilities are
needed in the event of military action? What is the objective of
a military strike and how long will it take to achieve? Is
parliamentary support necessary?
I would like to take the opportunity to address some of these
issues, first on what is at stake. What is at stake is a moral
imperative, that of peace and security for this world, peace and
security not only for those who are living peacefully in
countries such as Canada and are privileged by our citizenship
but also, as other leaders have said in this House today, the
peace and security of other human beings with whom we share this
world.
What is the best way of dealing with this situation? As I have
made clear, the position of the Progressive Conservative Party of
Canada is that diplomacy of course must be the preferred option.
However, should diplomacy fail then the use of force would then
become justified.
In our opinion diplomacy is not a success if Saddam Hussein
agrees only to the inspection of a limited number of sites.
Security council resolution 687 sets out the terms that Iraq must
comply with under the gulf war ceasefire. It is clear in that
resolution that the ceasefire is conditional on UN sanctioned
inspection of Iraqi weapon sites.
I want to quote from paragraph eight of resolution 687 because
it spells it out very clearly:
—decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction,
removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision,
of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents
and all related subsystems and components and all research,
development, support and manufacturing facilities.
The resolution goes on at length but it is very clear.
It is clear from the ceasefire agreement that should Iraq
continue to violate UN security council resolutions regarding
inspection of Iraqi weapon sites, the use of force against Iraq
to destroy its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons is
justified.
However, it is not clear, given the answers the Prime Minister
and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have offered today in the
House of Commons what diplomatic efforts they have undertaken to
resolve the rift that currently exists between members of the UN
security council.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs made a very troubling
admission today in the House of Commons when asked whether or not
we should renew our efforts on the UN front. The Minister of
Foreign Affairs had to admit to this House today that if we did
that we ran the risk of establishing and defining a rift within
the UN security council itself.
Pretending this problem does not exist is not going to make it
go away. This is a very serious admission on behalf of the
minister and one that this House and Canadians need to know
before we make a decision with regard to the future of the men
and women who will be involved in this conflict.
What would be the position should Russia and China continue to
hold the view that there should be no intervention? Will we
provide support for military action by our traditional allies or
would we be opposed?
What forces are needed and what can Canada provide is another
question. It is unclear at this point what exactly is being
asked. Currently only Britain and the United States have
committed to military participation while Germany has pledged
full political support and the use of air bases.
Of course the world cannot be held hostage by Saddam Hussein and
his arsenal of biological weapons.
1935
However, it must be clear to all countries involved what the
objectives of a military strike in Iraq are and what the strike
will accomplish. Now is the time to be clear on this.
There are those who may not think it is significant. History is
full of examples of countries that got themselves involved in
conflicts they thought were temporary, regional, limited in time
and space but could not get out of them. I do not have to remind
members of what the Vietnam experience was for the Americans.
Yet some seem already to have forgotten. Why? Because it must be
clear from the outset what objective we are pursuing. We have
yet to hear exactly what it is. The joint committee would help
to establish and clarify that position. I am still hoping the
government will come to its senses and establish that joint
committee.
What will we offer in terms of capacity? This government has
reduced Canada's forces by about 25% since 1994. It is not any
coincidence that the American president would not ask for more.
He knows full well that Canada cannot offer more than what he is
asking. What is the state of Canada's military equipment? These
are all questions we have to ask.
What objective will we pursue? I see two obvious objectives.
Iraq's air defences and many weapons we have identified would
need to be destroyed.
We need to know what position our government will take if
military bombing is taken and is extended to a vast area. These
are all questions that need to be answered. We also know that
time is running out.
I want to know whether or not Canada's Parliament will be
involved in this debate. In 1991 there were 71 hours of debate
and three debates in the House of Commons. We learned a great
deal from the experience of 1991.
I hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs heckling me from the
other side of the House of Commons. This is a happy coincidence.
Let me quote from Debates of 1990. One member in the
House at the time said: “If all of a sudden we are beginning to
deploy troops and give them rules of engagement or a mandate that
extends beyond the clear definition provided by the UN, then we
may also be in danger of undermining the opportunity of the UN to
show it must be the place where decisions are made”. That was
said by the member who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
That is what he thought then.
Let me quote again. A member of the House of Commons said: “Do
individual nations, whether they be large or small, have the
right to decide when to use force for invasionary purposes? It
should not be a unilateral decision”. That was the same
minister recorded in Hansard on September 24, 1990. I can
only regret that he does not seem to be as forthcoming today.
This is a very important moment in the life of our Parliament
and Canadians deserve that many questions be answered. Our party
will continue to push so that we have as much information as
possible.
[Translation]
We will continue to push the government to answer these
questions and put an end to this absurd situation, which I must say
I have trouble understanding. I do not understand what this
government has to hide.
Why not strike a committee? Why not make a statement in the
House of Commons? It is not as though partisan issues were
involved. We have just been through a crisis. In such times,
neither the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the leader of the Reform
Party, or the Leader of the New Democratic Party engage in partisan
politics.
Yet the government is stuck in some kind of rut that is frankly
difficult to explain.
[English]
Given the extraordinary circumstances we are in and the fact
that the government has not been forthcoming on this matter, I
would like to close my remarks by asking for the unanimous
consent of the House of Commons to put the following motion:
That the proceedings be interrupted at this time to permit the
Prime Minister to answer questions from members of all parties
for the next thirty minutes.
1940
The Speaker: We have another motion asking for unanimous
consent to take a particular action. Does the hon. member have
unanimous consent of this House to put the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: He does not have unanimous consent. Debate.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me first say on behalf of the government how
much we appreciate the comments made by the leaders of the
various parties, with the exception of the last speaker, who I
think have approached this matter is a forthright way, trying to
come to grips with the real issues that are at stake instead of
engaging in the kind of cheap politics that we have heard for the
past 20 minutes.
It is unfortunate that a once great party has now taken up
wallowing in the bile of its self-defeat over the last two
elections and is no longer prepared to deal with issues in a
serious way.
Let me point out one simple fact that the leader of the
opposition, who seems to have had a striking case of amnesia, has
forgotten. When he was a member of the cabinet, the previous
prime minister and his government made a decision to deploy
troops and did not get around to asking Parliament for 12 weeks
what its opinion was. Now all of a sudden here he stands with
this great smile of indignation, with crocodile tears pouring
around his ankles, saying “for goodness sake, we are having a
debate tonight and, my goodness, it took you a day to get around
to it”.
What hypocrisy coming from a member of a government that had no
interest, no commitment and no engagement to bring Parliament
into it whatsoever. That is the problem.
Even during this event, where other opposition parties had the
good sense to request briefings, and were so given, members of
the Conservative Party could not quite get themselves around to
making the call or asking for those briefings. We called them
and said “tell us what you are prepared to do”. We never heard
back from them.
With respect to a joint committee, I would like to tell the hon.
member, because he is not around Parliament very much, that we do
have standing committees on foreign affairs and defence. We meet
regularly. They, too, have asked for briefings, which they will
be given. It would help if the hon. member spent a little more
time in this place finding out what is going on. Then he might
be able to get his facts straight.
When it comes to some of the questions, I think they are
legitimate and proper questions. First let us talk for a moment
about the basic position of Canada in this matter. This is not a
matter of simply following what the United States wants or, I
should say to the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party, what
the Labour leader in the United Kingdom has asked for, Canada's
co-operation. This is a question of whether we as an independent
country make a choice as to what our basic national interest is.
I would say our basic national interest, as properly elaborated
by members of this House, is to say clearly the danger that
Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government represent by their
unwillingness to abide by the ceasefire resolution, continuing
with the manufacture and potential development of weapons of mass
destruction and carrying biological weapons presents a clear and
imminent danger to Canadians as well as to everybody else around
the world.
Therefore we must find ways of stopping him. We know from past
history that Saddam Hussein is not limited by any sense of moral
compunction. He recognizes no restraint of the normal civilized
world.
I spent ten days in Iraq negotiating the release of Canadian
hostages back in the late 1980s. It is a forbidding place. More
important, it is an immoral place from the point of view of that
government.
By his use of biological and chemical weapons against the Kurds,
against his own people, against the minority of his own people,
he demonstrates how dangerous a person he can be, and that
continued possession of those weapons of mass destruction
represents a clear and present danger to all of us. We must take
action.
Several members have said “Why isn't Canada being more
diplomatic?” I can say we have been very busy on that
diplomatic front.
1945
I was in the Middle East before Christmas meeting with virtually
all the major Arab countries to talk to them specifically about
the issue of a peace process on the one side and the situation of
Iraq on the other, trying to find what solutions there might be,
trying to build some bridges through the Arab world into Iraq to
say this is the way to go.
We have taken actions in the United Nations to support very
clearly the easing of the economic embargo. We supported the
secretary general in his interest of raising the limits on which
the oil for peace program can be implemented, so we could bring
money and support and resources to the children of Iraq and the
people of Iraq.
There is one basic problem. Saddam Hussein does not want to
play. He does not recognize that. We could solve this
diplomatically in 10 seconds if Saddam Hussein simply lived up to
his obligations. That is all. He signed a paper, he agreed to
the conditions and he could tomorrow find a total solution if he
simply lived up to his responsibilities, but he refuses to do so.
Over the past seven years we have found one provocation after
another, a refusal to live up to those conditions, to a point
finally where the report of UNSCOM, not the United States, not
the United Kingdom, but the United Nations itself has clearly put
in writing that they have a great apprehension about the
continued capacity of Saddam Hussein to manufacture biological
and chemical weapons. If something is not done, that capacity
will become fully developed and he can not only use it for his
own purposes, but also use it to transfer into the hands of other
terrorists or other rogue states.
There does come a time when some decision has to be made. Even
as I am here on the floor of this House, we are continuing our
efforts at the United Nations to see if there is some way of
getting a further resolution of the security council to provide a
way in which both the incentive to the Iraqis to an easing of the
sanctions can be developed and passed.
When the leader of the Conservatives scoffs at the idea that we
do not want to emphasize or exaggerate the risk, what kind of
topsy-turvy world does this gentleman live in? I do not
understand what he is talking about. He wants us to go and
deliberately show that there is a split. He wants Canada to take
the lead to say there is no agreement. Or should we be working
as hard as we can over the next period of time to try to get that
agreement, to try to work with these people, to get the kind of
resolution to the security council that might work. That is what
I was saying today. Let us try to do what is pragmatic and
useful.
I would suggest one thing that this House should consider. It
goes back to what the Prime Minister said. These are difficult
decisions. I think the Leader of the Opposition said the same
thing. No one relishes it. One thing that might occur as part
of the diplomatic initiative that may be required is to
demonstrate solidarity, to show that there is total resolve among
civilized countries that we are willing to stand up for basic
principles and ideals. That is the way we have to do it.
Let us get a message to Saddam Hussein that we are prepared to
take the action necessary to protect the lives of Canadians, the
lives of the people in the Middle East and the lives of the
people around the world.
It has been pointed out that we took the initiative on the land
mines. That is true for one basic reason. Here was a weapon
system that had a clear and present danger to lives of innocent
civilians. There is no real difference in this issue. We are
trying to deal with an individual or a government that is
preparing and developing massive weapons of the most diabolical
kind that can be unleashed upon the people of this world.
Therefore we have to take a stand to make sure they are not used.
In the same way we want to eliminate land mines we want to
eliminate biological and chemical weapons. We want Iraq to live
up to the convention it signed and we want to find a way to
ensure that there is a basic standard in this world that says you
should not use these weapons against innocent people. That is
the dilemma that we face.
I certainly am in full agreement with those who have spoken so
far in saying that we also have to take into account what the
repercussions of this must be. That is why we are here in the
House today. This is not, as some member suggested, where
Parliament is going to make a decision. We are consulting with
the House. I would say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition he
knows this well. I ask him to look at the record. He knows that
on questions like Bosnia we have had full debates and briefings
in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
the defence committee. We have brought the debates to the House.
Ultimately I must say this. The final decision rests with the
Government of Canada.
We will use and develop the best kind of exchange of views of
Parliament, but ultimately we must decide. The Prime Minister
said so in question period today. We are here to, first, find
out what the reflective views of constituents from across Canada
are about what that decision should be, the general thrust of it.
1950
We can certainly continue to work with Parliament in a variety
of ways, and we have in the past, but we cannot abrogate the
responsibility to make a decision which, as the Prime Minister
said, the cabinet will consider tomorrow.
We can then follow through on the kinds of continuing dialogue
and exchange of information to ensure that Parliament is fully
involved in the ensuing developments.
We should not assume—I was a little struck by the comments of
the Leader of the Opposition in question period—that we may be
near war. I dearly hope not. I do not think we should be even
using the language of jingoism in this case.
What we should be saying is that we want to avoid war at all
costs. At the same time, we must work to ensure that that war is
not leashed upon us through biological and chemical weapons. That
is why we must take a stand to prevent that happening in the most
effective way possible.
Given the kind of support we have heard so far with the
exception of the Conservative Party, we think we can go into
cabinet with a better sense of where Canadians are coming from
and the kinds of directions they would like us to follow.
Parliament is really very much the crucible in which these
decisions will be looked at, will be examined. We will continue
to make that commitment to do so.
I would say that whatever decision is taken tomorrow by the
primem minister and the cabinet to respond to the request that is
made, we will also continue to have time. Let us not get
ourselves into some kind of frantic feeding frenzy that all of a
sudden we have to rush to the barricades.
We are prepared to say to Saddam Hussein that we will, if forced
to the very last resort, be prepared to support military action.
In the meantime, I believe that a show of solidarity, a show of
unity among the western countries will help greatly to get a more
peaceful solution. I may be wrong. I may have to say
unfortunately it did not work because this is an imperfect world
and there are imperfect people in it. No one is more imperfect
than Saddam Hussein in this kind of question.
Let us devote our attention and our commitment to the kind of
consensus that we hope to develop through this parliamentary
debate to ensure that Canada can continue to play a role in
conflict resolution, to take the leadership that we can. We
would like to take more leadership if we are on the security
council. We hope members of Parliament will help us get there
next fall.
In the meantime, we will do everything in our power, everything
in our resources to try to find that solution. It is important
that in tonight's debate for those who are listening in that the
message is clear to the Iraqi government and to President Saddam
Hussein that we stand with the United Nations and the resolutions
that were passed beginning in 1990 and 1991 right until last
November when they said any sort of breach by the Iraqis of the
commitments made in the ceasefire agreement of 1991 constitutes a
threat to international peace and security.
We went looking for a mandate and the Leader of the
Conservatives was quite happy to quote for me. I am glad he did.
It saves me the trouble of doing so. That still stands. There
are resolutions passed by the security council as late as
November saying that any breach of the agreements made in 1991
presents a clear threat to peace and security and that therefore
there is the kind of authorization through the security council
and its record of decision in the past seven years to try to
provide that kind of mandate.
Let us see what happens to the security council in the next week
as the United Kingdom and other nations along with ourselves are
trying to work toward a resolution that can strengthen that
position and also provide the Iraqis with the incentive they need
in terms of being able to alter the terms of the embargo or the
sanctions to try to find a solution.
That is perhaps the best balance of a diplomatic approach, to
provide the carrot and the stick at the same time, but we need to
have both in this case because that is the only language that
Saddam Hussein understands.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, this is
not the time to play partisan politics, to get into the
infighting that we might get into, but to do what is good for
Canada. I think that is our job here in this House tonight, to
get the facts on the table so that people can understand what the
issues are and what the real threat is.
I believe that we have a moral, a political obligation to
Canadians to let them know what this issue is all about. It
would be my intention this evening to try to add the information
that I have put together which certainly I have received from
briefings from Foreign Affairs, from Canada, from other
countries, from ambassadors and citizens of Canada who I have
talked to.
It would be my intention to talk about it from the moral
perspective of what is right for Canada, for Canadians and for
this House.
1955
After listening to the statement made by the leader of our
party, I think it might have been better to have a full briefing
of all members of Parliament in this House. We could have had a
question and answer period for however long. We could have
controlled and allowed people to present their party positions.
That is an approach we should look at for the future. Today it is
important to get the information out concerning what is an
extremely serious situation for Canadians and for the world as we
face Saddam Hussein.
An often asked question is what kind of person is Saddam
Hussein. I am not sure that we are not looking at another 1938
and another Hitler and having a debate like that. I think this
guy is as serious and as dangerous as the man they discussed way
back then. This person has a record of using biological and
chemical weapons on his own people and on his enemies. He seems
to have no compassion in his use of those kinds of weapons.
Look at his history. In 1975 he signed a non-interference pact
with Iran, yet in 1980 he invaded Iran and the war began. Those
eight years of war did not seem to cause him very much grief even
with the million people who were killed, some of his own and some
Iranians. He used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers and on
his own people. He accepted the UN ceasefire but it was not long
until he decided to push further. He worked on enriching uranium
and on biological and chemical weapons. On August 2, 1990, when
he invaded Kuwait he again indicated the kind of person he really
is, a power hungry individual.
As I go through this history I realize that we did commit back
then to being involved. I think Canadians were proud of that
involvement because we were fighting a person who was dangerous
to society. We know how he has functioned in government. He has
even killed his own relatives. He kills dissidents. He kills
ministers. He kills Kurdish minorities. We know what kind of
person he is. I wonder when I hear people ask if he is really
dangerous. I do not think there is any doubt about the danger
posed by a person like Saddam Hussein.
We have to look at the history of UNSCOM. I have spent quite
some time examining what it has told us over the past seven and a
half years. I have talked to 12 ambassadors about their feelings
on what UNSCOM was saying. I have talked to our own people about
that. I have talked to the Americans, the British, the French,
the Russians.
What about UNSCOM? Is this stuff really there? I think all
have heard the facts and figures. I could go through a long list
but I do not think it will be necessary, except that we must let
Canadians know that UNSCOM is telling us that these people have
these weapons, that the history, the facts and figures are there.
This is not something being imagined nor is it being created by
the Americans, as we have heard. These facts and figures are
there. Representatives I have talked to from at least 12
countries—the minister has probably talked to many others—agree
those weapons are there.
It has been documented that 38,000 tonnes of chemical weapons
have been destroyed. This guy produced those things and they
have been destroyed.
There are 480,000 litres of CW agents for the production of
chemical weapons. This guy produced that. He organized that.
That is the kind of person we are talking about.
2000
UNSCOM has confirmed the existence of industrial scale VX nerve
gas, the production of four tonnes of VX. One drop will kill an
individual. He has produced them and we know they are there.
There is a list of other things: anthrax, 8,400 litres and
19,000 litres of botulinum. What more facts do we need? There
are people on the ground in Iraq saying that stuff is there. What
more proof could we have of the danger of this individual?
I could continue to talk about this matter but will add only a
few notes. Britain is shocked and appalled by the amount of
chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. That is quoting Britain
directly. It is shocked that this level has been allowed to
build up and wishes action would have been taken sooner.
I have talked to the Israelis. The Russian position is pretty
straightforward. All of us are working for a peaceful solution.
It would be much better to have a peaceful solution. Everybody
is for that. However, if that is not possible, who are we
dealing with? What is Saddam Hussein like? That is the point.
The Russians say their biggest concern is of the conflict
spreading, what it will be like to see, and the suffering that
the Iraqi people will experience during a war they have already
gone through. We are all worried about that. All of us care.
Our war is not with the Iraqi people or the Arab states. Our war
is with Saddam Hussein, an insane dictator. That is whom our war
is with.
Turkey has already suffered from all kinds of instability and
terrorism. All kinds of refugees were forced on Turkey because
of the kind of dictator Hussein is. Iran is extremely concerned.
It is very sympathetic for the people of Iraq, the very people
they fought against, but they have no sympathy for Saddam
Hussein. They know what he is like. They will confirm, if asked,
what kind of an individual we are dealing with in Saddam Hussein.
It is not a matter of establishing how dangerous the person is.
We all agree how dangerous he is. We are at the point of looking
at the real threats of terrorism and our real options.
Again I paraphrase our leader when he said that the moral
justification for taking lives can only be justified if it is to
save lives. I think that is what we have to ask. If we take
option one and let this person thumb his nose at United Nations
resolutions and at the allies, he will continue to produce these
weapons. He will continue to develop delivery mechanisms. He
will continue to plan in his own sick way how he will push his
power beyond his own country.
What does that mean? It is one thing when he terrorizes his
people. It is one thing when he terrorizes his neighbours. Could
he affect us? Could he destabilize our civilization with his
terrorism? That is possible. That is not dreaming. That is not
science fiction. That is reality.
If we do not act today what kind of a threat do we have in the
future? All of us only need to imagine—or we go to some of the
movies in the theatres now—the destabilization that our
economies and our countries can have because of terrorism.
Our second option is to demand the compliance of Saddam Hussein
to the rules set out in 1991 by the United Nations which say that
he must, without any exceptions, without any side deals, allow
full inspection of all possible bases within Iraq.
He must comply. There are no other options. Everything must be
inspected.
2005
The next part of it is that the weapons of mass destruction must
be destroyed. We cannot let a rogue state, a rogue person like
this, have control of those kinds of weapons. Otherwise we will
pay the price down the road big time.
Yes, we want diplomacy. We want it to the bitter end. We want
everybody who thinks they can add something to add it to try to
bring about a solution. We want to let Saddam Hussein know that
he has taken us to the brink and that the only way to move back
is to comply with the UN resolutions. He cannot move back and
six months down the road pull us back to the brink again. It has
gone too far this time. He was produced too much. He has too
much there. He is now a danger to the world as we know it.
It is time we put that message to him diplomatically. If all
that fails, we have no other solution but to use force, to force
him into compliance. That force used now will save lives in the
future. I am convinced of that. In working on this and
listening to what I have listened to, I am convinced of that.
We cannot hide from the issue. We cannot pretend it is not an
issue. We cannot say Saddam Hussein might be all right. We
cannot say maybe he will not use these weapons. He will use
these weapons. He will develop them and so it is time for
action.
We cannot hide from it. It is time for us to engage in world
politics, to let people know where we stand, to stand up and be
counted. As difficult as this might seem, we must stop the reign
of terror of Saddam Hussein. The terror must end. It is time
for Canada and Canadians to stand up for what they believe in,
stand with their allies, and the more multinational this is the
better it is.
I think everybody in the House should agree that we must stand
up and be counted. It is time for that. Our party certainly is
dedicated to working to that end. It is not time for partisan
politics. It is time for what is good for Canada. That is what
Canadians want to hear from us in the House tonight.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): I
rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Minister of
Foreign Affairs made reference to the fact that at no time had
there been any request made by members of the Progressive
Conservative Party of him, his office or the prime minister's
office with respect to a request for a briefing.
That is a glaring inaccuracy. It can be confirmed very easily
through records in the prime minister's office that in fact a
request for a briefing was made not once but several times by the
leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and by members of
the House. That is a glaring inaccuracy on the record.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is not a point
of order. We will resume debate with the hon. Minister of
National Defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, we need to get over the technicalities
the hon. member was just talking about and to get on with the
serious issues we are dealing with tonight. The spread of
chemical and biological weapons is one of the key security issues
of our time.
In the past when thinking about weapons of mass destruction more
likely we thought of nuclear weapons. Certainly that threat
during the cold war was one that was brought to our attention
constantly. While that threat has diminished it still exists.
There are still a lot of those weapons in the world. Meanwhile we
have seen a growing threat from biological and chemical weaponry
being produced and being stored.
Nowhere is that more evident than in Iraq.
2010
In Iraq it has been used. It was used in the Iran-Iraq war. It
was used against the Kurds. Saddam Hussein has quite clearly
shown that he will use this kind of weaponry. He is indeed, as
has been said here tonight, a very dangerous individual. We
cannot put it past him to continue to try to produce and use this
kind of weaponry.
The United Nations in its inspection commission has time and
time again come up with a number of components of these kinds of
chemical biological agents, components that needed to be
destroyed, components that he continues to try to produce to
build a stockpile of this weaponry.
Now he is refusing to allow that inspection group to check a
number of very key locations. He has for some reason decided to
develop over 40 new palaces, 40 palaces in addition to whatever
existed prior to that, 40 palaces which have a combined area
larger than many cities in the world. This is the kind of
cover-up he is attempting to do so that he can continue to be
able to produce weapons of mass destruction.
The evidence is overwhelming. The danger in the immediate area,
the danger to security in the world, is quite evident. We talked
about how a few drops of some of these agents can kill thousands
and perhaps even millions of people. They do not require
sophisticated delivery systems like nuclear weapons do. They can
be delivered in many different ways including a briefcase, many
ways this man will not overlook if he feels he needs to use this
kind of weaponry. This is a very dangerous man, and he cannot be
allowed to continue to develop this kind of weaponry.
The UN resolution is quite clear. He and his country need to
abide by that resolution. We cannot walk away from that
resolution. We want every diplomatic means to be found for him
to comply with it. We cannot walk away. The credibility of the
international community would be badly damaged if we did so. How
would any future resolutions to stop the spread of weapons of
mass destruction ever work if we do not back up this one, if we
do not make sure this one is complied with?
He says he will now allow some additional inspections but not
everything the resolution requires him to do. We cannot, as the
British found out in 1939, appease dictators. We cannot expect
that we will be to control the situation on his terms. They have
to be on the terms of the international community. They have to
be on the terms of the UN security council resolution. The
credibility of the United Nations is important and at stake in
this case.
We continue to press for diplomatic resolution of the matter. A
military presence is now evident in the area through aircraft
carriers, various other aircraft and ships that are amassing
under the control of the United States and the United Kingdom.
Together with other allied efforts hopefully we will add a
particular show of solidarity which will result in there being a
diplomatic resolution.
We certainly hope that will be the case. We certainly have to
give every effort to try to bring about a peaceful and diplomatic
resolution of the matter. If that cannot be done, we have to be
prepared to see the use of military force to ensure the UN
resolutions are abided by.
The Leader of the Opposition in his comments quite clearly said
that we do not want to be in a position where lives are lost.
There have been many lives lost in this area of the world. Many
lives were lost in the gulf war.
The lives of his own people were constantly in danger and
constant death was occurring within Iraq. A terrible situation
exists with respect to the survival of the people of that
country.
2015
We do not want to see more lives taken but if it is necessary to
ensure the saving of lives, then these very difficult decisions
about military action have to be contemplated. If at the end of
the day the diplomatic resolution does not work, then we have to
be prepared to see military action taken.
I do not believe Canada can stand idly by and watch our allies
go in and attempt to enforce the United Nations resolution. We
have to be a part of that effort. That is what this discussion
is about tonight, to determine whether Canada should be a part of
that effort. That is something the government will make a
decision on shortly. From there we will follow up with the
appropriate dialogue with our allies.
Are we in a position to do that? Yes we are. As we indicated
in the 1994 defence white paper, we have troops that are
multipurpose and combat capable. They are ready and capable to
operate in a support fashion in the Iraqi situation. That is the
extent of the request made by the United States which is leading
the allies in this endeavour. In a support position Canada could
provide ready and capable personnel and equipment.
The Leader of the Opposition has asked for more specific details
concerning the extent of our support position. More discussion
is required with our allies on this topic in order to determine
the precise nature of the mission and how Canada can play a
supporting role in co-ordination with the efforts of other
allies. If we decide as a government to participate in a
military action if necessary, then more effort would be required
to determine exactly in what way we should do that.
Tonight we need to resolve that this United Nations resolution
will be upheld, that Saddam Hussein and his country will comply
with that resolution and that we will ensure that these chemical
and biological weapons of mass destruction are removed and
destroyed as they should be so they will not be a threat to the
people in that area of the world or to the world in general.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I wish to inform you first of all that I shall be splitting my time
with the hon. member for Laval East.
We are here this evening for a debate on the United States'
invitation for Canada to take part in military interventions in the
Middle East. If the Bloc Quebecois considers it essential for
parliament to be involved in a debate, nevertheless the conditions
under which this evening's debate is being held leave no doubt
about where it is headed, about the decision the government appears
to have already reached on this matter.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have,
moreover, been far too uncommunicative this evening in informing
the hon. members of this House of the steps taken in favour of a
peaceful solution to the dispute which is pitting Iraq against the
international community, and the House has not been given
sufficient information on the arguments behind intervention by us
and by the U.S.
What is more, in the Minister of Foreign Affairs' speech just
now, he suggested that the hon. members of this House, the members
of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade, as well as of the Standing Committee on National Defence,
had been invited to attend information and discussion sessions on
the situation in Iraq.
2020
Since being elected and since taking part in the proceedings of the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I was
never invited to participate in such sessions. The Minister of Foreign
Affairs is suggesting that consultations took place when, in fact, this
was not the case.
Since members of Parliament were not consulted, and given the
obvious lack of related information, we have questions to ask the
government, questions that have not been answered but that must be
answered before we take a stand on behalf of Quebeckers, whom we are
representing in this debate.
The first thing that concerns the Bloc Quebecois is that Canada did
not truly real participate in a process to convince, through peaceful
means, Iraq to comply with the security council's resolutions, including
Resolution 687, which provides that Iraq must not produce weapons and
must destroy all existing stocks.
Again, in spite of his eloquent speech here this evening, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs did not demonstrate, nor did the Prime
Minister, that Canada had, to this day, contributed to a sufficiently
sustained diplomatic effort to this end. However, the minister did more
or less confirm that he was leaving it up to other states to search for
such a peaceful solution.
It is not enough to talk to the United States, to listen to the
request made by the U.S. president.
Calling the British Prime Minister or talking to our Australian
counterparts is not enough.
If we are really seeking a peaceful solution, it is important that
Canada look at our allies' positions on this issue. Canada should know
and take into consideration the fact that several of its NATO and OSCE
allies, including France, Belgium and Italy, have serious concerns about
the military intervention favoured by the United States and supported by
other powers, to say nothing of the reluctance shown by two other
members of the security council, namely Russia and China.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs pointed out during question period
today, Canada's efforts in seeking a diplomatic solution must not be
limited to the discussions that took place two weeks ago with the
Russian foreign affairs minister.
Canada must above all add its voice to the chorus of countries
seeking first and foremost a diplomatic solution. It should get more
actively involved in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict
opposing Iraq to the international community.
We therefore call on the international community to make a more
sustained effort to resolve a conflict that has endured for several
years and in which no military action appears imminent. All nations
acting in good faith should get more actively involved in seeking a
peaceful solution to this conflict.
The second point on which the Bloc Quebecois must get the facts,
and every member of this House should have sufficient information, is
one that should lead the government to make public the legal basis for
such military action. Actions taken by the United States, Canada and any
coalition of nations could obviously have a moral or political basis.
2025
No one, except those who have not understood and not properly
read the Security Council resolutions, is disputing the fact that
Iraq has, by its actions in recent years, violated both the spirit
and the letter of the Security Council resolutions. There is,
therefore, an obvious basis for any intervention that would arise
as the result of the lack of diplomatic solutions and Iraq's
refusal to settle this conflict through diplomatic channels.
The moral authority of those who wish to ensure that the
Security Council's decisions are respected is undeniable as well.
We do not deny that there is such a moral authority and political
authority and that the moral and political basis cannot be
disputed.
But what can be said about the legal basis for the intervention
being proposed by the United States, and seemingly desired by
Canada as well, barring a peaceful and diplomatic settling of the
dispute?
In the address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs a few
minutes ago, he suggested that this basis lies in a resolution
according to which any violation of Iraq's obligations under
Security Council Resolution 687 would constitute a threat to
international peace and security, and would consequently pave the
way for intervention of a military nature.
That statement was insufficiently explained and documented by
the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and some feel another Security
Council intervention would be required.
That Council would have to specifically authorize the use of force
in order to ensure compliance with the resolutions the United
States and other countries consider to have been violated by Iraq.
We wish to see the government enlighten parliament and the
hon. members of this House on the true legal basis for intervention
and inform us as to whether it has sought legal opinions, whether
it has in its possession legal opinions, or whether legal opinions
have been provided to it by those desiring this intervention, the
U.S. in particular, so that this House may be convinced that the
Government of Canada, by committing to such intervention, is not
violating international law and is not diminishing the authority of
the United Nations. If military intervention by the United States,
participated in by Canada, did diminish the authority of the United
Nations, that authority and that decision might impact very badly
on the future of the organization.
Like others, the Bloc Quebecois believes that Saddam Hussein
has failed to comply with international obligations under United
Nations resolutions. This is a head of state who without doubt
deserves to be punished for his actions. However, as the famous
diplomat Henry Kissinger expressed it with a Spanish proverb, and
I quote: “Traveller, there are no roads. Roads are made by
walking”.
The Government of Canada has no—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pardon me, the hon.
member's time has expired. The hon. member for Laval East.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Madam Speaker, this
evening's debate on the possibility of a war with Iraq is certainly
not an easy one. We must consider all the effects of the decision
the Canadian government is preparing to take in this conflict.
Yesterday's request by the U.S. government that the Government
of Canada support a military intervention against Iraq is fraught
with consequence. It would likely take, for the moment at least,
the form of help in the areas of transportation and search and
rescue teams.
2030
The position of the Bloc Quebecois is clear. We favour a
resolution of this conflict by diplomatic means first, and in full
compliance with the UN resolutions. The President of Iraq, Saddam
Hussein, must comply with the resolutions of the UN requiring him
to totally dismantle his arsenal of mass destruction. Every
diplomatic effort must be made to avoid this catastrophe.
Should the resolution of the conflict be through military
intervention, the Bloc considers that a decision in this regard
must be made with the approval of the security council, as it was
in 1991.
Because it is the UN Security Council that deals with issues relating to
world peace and security.
Should it decide to act without the Security Council's approval,
Canada would send the message that we can do without the UN and not
comply with international law and treaties.
However, should the United Nations, through the Security Council,
agree to military intervention, we would then have to decide on the
nature of Canada's military contribution. Would it be similar to the one
in the 1991 conflict, or would it be of a more aggressive nature? This
is another important issue that should be debated in this House. It goes
without saying that I hope we do not have to get to that stage.
The Bloc Quebecois firmly believes that, in the reply Canada will
soon have to give to the United States, our country should demand that
any military action be first and foremost authorized by the UN Security
Council. Canada must protect the credibility, the authority and the
supremacy of the United Nations, which is the only authority in this
matter.
To fully understand today's debate, it must be remembered that it
was in the aftermath of the Gulf War that the UN Security Council
ordered Iraq to unconditionally destroy all its weapons of mass
destruction, both chemical and bacteriological, and its ballistic
missiles.
In addition to not complying with over 30 UN resolutions, Iraq will
trigger a conflict by refusing to let inspectors from the UN special
commission conduct inspections and destroy the stockpiles of weapons
located on certain presidential Iraqi sites.
Tonight's debate deals essentially with two issues: to preserve
peace and to promote disarmament throughout the world.
By tradition, Canada's foreign policy pursues objectives that seek
to promote peace. For decades, Canada has been trying to project the
image of a country dedicated to maintaining peace and security. Our
peacekeepers have been sent to many regions where conflicts were raging,
for the purpose of helping to restore and to preserve world peace.
Providing defensive resources to resolve the Iraqi conflict would
jeopardize everything Canada has worked so hard to accomplish in
this regard.
With its success in the case of the land mines treaty, Canada
has played a leadership role with respect to disarmament. As we
have already said in the House, ratification of this treaty has not
and will not resolve the problem of disarmament. Much remains to
be done regarding heavy, conventional, small or light weapons. But
let us point out that, for Canada to play an active role in an
armed conflict would, once again, be contrary to the objectives
pursued for years now.
Canada is not, however, as pure as the driven snow when it
comes to disarmament.
The annual report on Canada's military exports states that, in
1996, exports to countries such as Indonesia, China, India and
Algeria increased.
2035
Although the overall value of Canada's military exports went
down in 1996, exports to low and middle income countries have, to
all intents and purposes, doubled during the same period,
increasing from 8% to 14%. These figures are the proof that much
remains to be done, even in Canada, to disarm the planet and set
the stage for real world peace.
In the conflict that concerns us, negotiations must therefore
be stepped up, and in this regard the Bloc Quebecois feels that the
Canadian government has not made all the necessary efforts. These
negotiations must therefore be stepped up so that a negotiated
settlement can be reached.
World order cannot allow such a conflict. Hostilities could worsen
with unimaginable consequences for people, with Iraq favouring
bacterial and chemical weapons to defend its territory. Such
weapons, we must remember, are inexpensive to produce and, unlike
nuclear weapons, require little storage space and so may be easily
hidden. These indiscriminating weapons are launched without
warning and affect both innocent civilians and military personnel.
The problem we now encounter with Iraq could one day arise
with the growing powers of developing countries.
We even know that certain governments are trying to acquire or
already have the technology that affords them inexpensive
deterrence capabilities and that can be used forcibly anywhere in
the world against any country.
In closing, I consider the possibility of a conflict with Iraq
very serious. I hope that it may be resolved in terms of the
sharing of the burden, if the decision is the UN's alone. However,
the Bloc's basic position is that diplomatic efforts should be made
to find a peaceful solution to the conflict.
[English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
this time allotment will be divided between the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, and myself.
So far in this debate the assumption is being made that Saddam
Hussein will use biological weapons and therefore he must be
destroyed. Before deciding on the proper course of action and
without making such an assumption, we must examine the facts and
the gravity of the situation.
First it must be remembered that Saddam Hussein is the one who
declared war on Iran, a war that persisted for 10 years. It was
Saddam Hussein who instigated the gulf crisis in 1989 and 1990.
We are dealing here with an aggressive, dangerous and
unpredictable man. There is no doubt.
It must also be stressed that there is no resolution by the
United Nations Security Council requesting the United States or
any other government to start a war in 1998. By no means has the
security council, let alone the United Nations membership, the
general assembly, given the mandate to any country to proceed
with war.
Another assumption is that only Iraq among the community of
nations possesses biological weapons. Who makes these weapons?
Where do they come from? Have the United States, the United
Kingdom, France, India or China ever declared that they do not
possess such weaponry? I do not recall such a statement.
It seems to me there are two possible approaches for
consideration by the community of nations. The first is to stoop
to the level of the opponent and to fight fire with fire, but in
this case such an approach hardly seems appropriate where no
opening shot has yet been fired. The other approach is to pursue
diplomatic solutions with the long term goal in mind of making it
possible for the people of Iraq to replace the present
leadership.
History teaches us that whenever we declare war, Mr. Hussein
becomes stronger because his population rallies around him.
In addition, whenever we declare war, the Islamic world perceives
a threat by the western world. Whenever we declare war, we help
Saddam Hussein. Whenever we declare war, we solidify domestic
support around him and polarize global public opinion. It seems
that instead of waging war again, we should find ways to drive a
wedge between the population and the military leadership.
2040
Why not abandon the fruitless imposition of sanctions? Sanctions
have not worked. They have served only to reinforce grassroots
support in Iraq for Saddam Hussein and to create hardships for
the civilian population.
Why penalize the civilian population? Why not allow Iraq to
sell its oil on the market? With affluence, civilian standards
of living would improve. With improved standards of living, the
people of Iraq would eventually recover to the point where they
could replace the current military regime. It has happened
elsewhere. That is certainly a better prospect than bombing,
destroying and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
It is interesting to note and worth putting on record the
observations by Anton Kuerti, the world renowned Canadian concert
pianist. He expressed his views on the situation in Iraq in a
letter to the Globe and Mail published last Saturday:
There is a grim irony in watching the nation with the largest
collection of doomsday weapons in the world seeking to forbid
another nation from acquiring its own relatively negligible
collection.
Granted, 20,000 weapons in sane hands may in the short run, be
less dangerous than even one in the hands of a madman, but that
does not make them safe or morally tolerable. We have not
forgotten who used them first. Only those nations that had
forsworn the possession of genocidal weapons have the right to
insist that others do likewise.
It is even more ironic that the nation which refuses to pay most
of its dues to the United Nations and sabotaged the worldwide
attempt to outlaw land mines should invoke an outdated United
Nations resolution to justify its imminent massive bombing raids,
despite the fact that almost every nation on the Security Council
is opposed to this new aggression—.Just as neglect of due
process of law brings the whole judicial system into disrespect,
the scenario that is unfolding not only threatens to further
destroy Iraq and any hope for Middle East peace, but to
obliterate what little moral authority and respect the UN can
still muster. If the UN becomes a tool for one country to
manipulate and justify its unlawful actions, its useful life will
be over.
The situation is very serious but it should not be resolved by
way of armed conflict. We should work harder along diplomatic
fronts with the French, Italian and Russian governments which are
presently engaged in diplomatic negotiations with Iraq. The
solution is not to be found through war. There are good reasons
for the west to rethink its approach to Iraq and the gravity of
the situation makes it necessary and urgent.
Tonight two Reform speakers in their interventions said that the
only moral justification for taking life is to prevent loss of
future life. I submit this logic is appalling because it
endorses the killing of innocent civilians by the thousands on
the assumption that lethal weapons might be used in the future.
With that logic, war could be declared on each nation holding
weapons of mass destruction so as to prevent loss of future life.
What a prospect. The morality of the Reform Party would lead to
bringing back capital punishment.
The state would take a life in retaliation for a similar act.
What a barbaric example for a modern state to give to society.
2045
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the prime minister
undertook to this House that before Canada would consider any
request for going beyond diplomatic action in the present crisis
in Iraq, he would consult the House. He has done this and I
think it is worth noting that it is a progressive step in the
evolution of parliamentary responsibility.
The United States Constitution envisages the president and
congress acting together, but increasingly they resort to armed
force done by executive presidential action alone. We are the
only country, I think, among the present group of countries
interested in this issue where Parliament has been consulted. I
think it is a precedent for future action and a welcome one.
There has been some discussion of 1991. It is worth commenting
that although there was a big debate in Parliament, it did occur
three months after the decision was taken to send the troops in.
When the call comes at five in the morning “Please join us in
military action”, we simply say “Look, we have to consult
Parliament”. That is our approach. It is a new approach and we
thank the prime minister for it.
There has been some discussion on the legal authority of the
United States and by the same token those associated or allied
with the United States to take action involving the potential use
of force against Iraq. It has been said “You must go to the
security council and get a fresh resolution”.
I do not think that is so as a matter of legal interpretation.
In fact the gulf operation was rather special. It was undertaken
by a government on Canada's part previous to the present one, and
the United States by a president previous to the present
president. What was done was a little different from classic UN
peacekeeping operations or peacemaking operations where in fact
there is a UN force under the aegis of the UN secretary general
and responsible to the secretary general.
In fact what was done was a series of umbrella resolutions
delegating the power to the United States commander in chief and
responsible to the president of the United States. I say that
was an unusual action but the series of resolutions have a broad,
legal authority for which I think it can reasonably be argued
that the authority to take the present action is there.
My own advice would be if the opportunity allows to seek a fresh
security council resolution, but I do not think it is legally
necessary and we would have to bear in mind that the veto power
operates. It is intolerable that the veto should be used to
prevent collective action on which there is a consensus. This
was the argument we made and other countries made as far back as
the Korean war in 1950 when the general assembly passed the
uniting for peace resolution, an unprecedented constitutional
step. I think the legal authority is there.
Canada's own role as we know has been the classic UN
peacekeeping role which then foreign minister Lester Pearson
devised. It is associated with his name. We do believe in the
peacekeeping role. We have tended to eschew the use of armed
force. Our role in the gulf war was limited to a supporting
auxiliary role with an interdiction of search and destroy
operations.
It is worth noting that the president of the United States in
approaching us has asked us to do that and no more. It is search
and rescue operations, transport operations, but not more. I
think there is advantage for that, and it is not something that
we have sought, but it means that problems involving the use of
armed force, involving the law of war, simply do not apply in
relation to the Canadian operations.
The United States in relying on the resolutions of course does
not operate in a vacuum. The present United Nations based law is
subject to the general law of war, the customary rules of
international law. One of the rules is of course that you must
exhaust the diplomatic methods, the peaceful methods, the lesser
controls.
The United States is aware of that. We are aware of that.
2050
The prime minister and the foreign minister have assured us that
diplomatic activities will continue. That is the primary
obligation. It is only after they have been tried and exhausted
to the full that one is allowed to resort to other options which
may involve the use of armed force. The principle of the economy
in the use of power applies if armed force is used. All parties
to the gulf war operation were aware of that and parties to any
future action in the present situation would be aware of that.
In particular, granted the evolution of international law, the
developing juridical conscience, times have moved since 1991. It
is true that the 1978 Geneva protocols additional to the Geneva
protocols of 1925, which established stringent rules in the
application of air power where civilian targets are involved
incidentally to a military objective, apply even though it is
true that neither Iraq nor the United States ratified them.
International law supplied the general rules.
I say this simply to stress that if one feels one has to move
beyond the diplomatic stage, one does not operate in a legal
vacuum. We are aware of this. Our allies are aware of this. We
will be continuing with our diplomatic negotiations to make that
clear if further options arise.
To recapitulate, it is not in my view necessary to obtain a
fresh security council resolution. I believe there is enough
available under the series of umbrella resolutions passed in 1991
and their continuing interpretation and application but it would
be better to obtain such a new resolution. I welcome our foreign
minister's undertaking that this is going on and will continue to
go on.
As I say, if it should become necessary to apply some form of
military force, the Canadian role at the request of the United
States is limited to auxiliary support operations. However even
in roles for allies going beyond that, the rules of temperamenta
belli apply. It is not a situation of operating in a legal
vacuum.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I will
be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.
Before I get into my remarks, I would like to congratulate the
member for Davenport, the dean of the House, for his very
thoughtful remarks a few minutes ago. I certainly hope that the
prime minister was listening to those remarks on the need for
more diplomatic efforts before any action is taken tomorrow in
cabinet. The prime minister indicated that he was going to be
listening very carefully to the debate tonight. The member for
Davenport had some very important things to say to the prime
minister.
This is a very important debate tonight. I am advised that
there are some young Canadians in front of this building
conducting a vigil on the Iraq situation. Clearly, Canadians are
engaged as well in the debate.
Earlier in the evening the leader of our party outlined why
military action proposed by the United States against Iraq is
reckless and ill advised. She has explained why Canada should
avoid the fatal mistake of agreeing to participate in such an
action at this time.
My first point relates to the role of Parliament with respect to
our role here as legislators in a sovereign country that must
make its own decision. The U.S. secretary of state, Madam
Albright, said last night that Canadians support her. Is she
taking us for granted? Was it a misquote? Or does she know
something that has been kept from the rest of us?
Canada is a sovereign country. We must make our own decisions,
whether they be about the MAI or about our defence policy, peace
and security in an increasingly uncertain world.
This party is saying that we need to give diplomacy more of a
chance. Canada has a long and honourable tradition as a nation
of diplomacy as has been noted earlier. We have just brokered an
international treaty on the disposal of land mines. We did that
even though our neighbour to the south did not approve and has
not yet signed on. It was a proud moment.
Why do we now want to rush off to support an ill-advised
military adventure proposed by the Americans?
2055
And why do the Americans want our support so badly? Despite what
we have heard from other parties tonight, the fact is that the
United States does not have widespread support for taking
military action at the present time against Iraq. The French are
opposed. The Russians are opposed. The Chinese are opposed.
Significantly the Arab countries in the Middle East are opposed.
In 1991 there was a bona fide coalition against Saddam Hussein.
Today there is none. The United States is contemplating drastic
action without much support from the world community. One might
well ask what confluence of events in the United States is
leading it into this strike at this time.
We have heard this evening without much backup as the member
from the Bloc was indicating a little while ago about the
involvement of the United Nations. Most of the remarks on the
situation in Iraq are coming from Washington and not from New
York where the United Nations is based. That poses a concern for
us.
Whatever President Clinton's reason for considering military
action, I suggest he wants Canada's approval and support
precisely because we have a standing and reputation in the world
community as an honest global citizen and he wishes to enlist our
support for his plan.
Let me underscore again what the member for Halifax said about
Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is a dictator and an abuser of
human rights. She said that we have been clearly on record as
supporting those UN resolutions that forbid Iraq from acquiring,
manufacturing or using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
This is fully consistent with our policy of opposition to the
manufacture, the proliferation and the use of nuclear weapons.
Our party has long been on record on these issues and there can
be no doubt about that.
The unsavoury nature of Saddam Hussein's character is not in
doubt, but that is not really the point here. The question to
ask is this: What is the point of Canadian participation in
another bombing spree against Iraq? It is supposedly to find a
way to secure Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions concerning
the inspection and destruction of the country's chemical and
biological weapons.
The sticky point seems to be the composition of the teams of UN
weapons inspectors in Iraq. It is clear that the American
presence among the senior ranks of these inspectors is viewed as
a provocation by the Iraqis. Surely an arrangement could be
reached whereby both the U.S. and Iraq could be satisfied with
the composition of an inspection team so that these inspections
can continue. Could Canada not play a diplomatic role in this
regard? The question to ask is whether the resumption of bombing
is going to accomplish that objective or not.
The Mennonite Central Committee, a respected Canadian church
organization with a long involvement in Iraq, has written the
prime minister telling him that it does not believe bombing Iraq
yet again will bring about compliance. This is what the
Mennonite Central Committee had to say in a letter sent to the
prime minister late last week:
The apparent intention of military action is to force Iraq's
compliance of UN resolutions which require Iraq to destroy all
weapons of mass destruction. But in statements made earlier this
week, U.S. defence secretary William Cohen made it clear that
military action will not bring a solution to the problem of
Iraq's non-compliance. We must then ask why these measures are
being so strongly considered and why Canada would consider
lending its moral or even its substantial support to them.
In these circumstances, our caucus can only echo the pleas of
the Mennonite Central Community which says in its letter to the
prime minister “We urge you and your government to look for
diplomatic ways of addressing the crisis”.
The gulf war in 1991 and seven subsequent years of military
action and threats have done nothing to ease tensions between
Iraq and the west. The approach taken by the United States has
in fact allowed Saddam Hussein to strengthen his grip on power as
he portrays himself as a victim of aggression at the hands of the
United States.
There is a fear that further military action would simply allow
Saddam Hussein to play this old card yet again. It is not only
church and peace groups that hold this analysis. Allow me to
refer to General Norman Schwarzkopf who has been referred to
earlier this evening.
The general told a British newspaper, the Guardian that
further bombing of Iraq would have no effect on Hussein's
defiance of the UN disarmament regime imposed on Iraq following
the 1991 gulf war. Schwarzkopf warned that American bombing of
Iraq might well smash the fragile international coalition that
has supported sanctions against Iraq.
We in this caucus are sceptical whether further military action
at this time against Iraq will work.
It will cause untold death and suffering to people who have
already suffered greatly. Rather than weakening it will only
secure Hussein in his position.
2100
I repeat that from our caucus we are saying no bombing now, no
Canadian compliance yet to the United States request. Efforts
should be redoubled, diplomacy given a real chance and a
multilateral solution sought.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to participate in the debate because it is a very
important one.
The motion before us is whether or not we accept the invitation
of the U.S. government to participate in possible military
actions in the Middle East. The question that each and every one
of us in the House has to ask ourselves is whether or not the
proposed military action will actually solve the problem we are
facing in Iraq and the Middle East and whether or not it will get
us any further ahead.
We heard earlier today in the debate from our leader, the member
for Halifax and from the member for Palliser that the NDP's point
of view is a resounding no in this invitation. We say no because
we understand and see what the legacy has been in our previous
military conflicts in the area. The military action that has
happened in the past has led to untold civilian deaths. We are
also very concerned about the environmental implications of
blowing up facilities and sites that contain deadly biochemicals,
biological and chemical weapons.
Today the largest peace organization, the Canadian Peace
Alliance, in a press release urged
parliamentarians in the House to turn down the invitation and the
pressure from the United States to become involved in military
action. It knows, as growing numbers of Canadians know, that to
rush into this kind of military madness means we are not placing
enough energy, work and emphasis on what can be very significant
diplomatic processes which by any means have not been exhausted.
If one looks at a history of the gulf war and the gulf situation,
Canada unfortunately has been part of an international process.
We have actually broken our commitment since the 1991 gulf war to
promote a regional peace process.
If the experience of the gulf war tells us anything, it is that
a tragic legacy was left with 600,000 children dead. Some 1.2
million civilians have died from malnutrition and another 4
million people are at risk. They are severely malnourished
because of the sanctions.
The Geneva conventions prohibit the destruction of vital systems
for civilian populations. In the gulf war we saw that 84% of the
infrastructure, like generating plants, water systems and sewage
systems, were destroyed. These are the basic necessities of
human life and survival. This is the real legacy of the military
conflict in Iraq and in the Middle East.
We have to ask the question in the House why the Canadian
government is even thinking of taking us down this path again.
Listening to the debate today we are appalled to hear the
position of the Reform Party. It basically comes out with a
statement that says to kill people, to engage in military
conflict, is all right if it means that somehow we will resolve
this conflict. We reject the approach being put forward by the
Reform Party.
We have to ask ourselves why it is the U.S. government is
pushing a unilateral military solution. Is it to divert
attention from domestic affairs, or is it really part of what has
been a mounting campaign to assert U.S. control and military
supremacy egged on by the arms dealers and the profiteers from
civilian deaths? We too have a responsibility for the current
crisis because we in Canada, our Canadian government, allows more
than $1 billion worth of military exports to this area of
conflict.
2105
We have to say that military actions only serve themselves. They
do not solve the problems before us and will only lead to further
conflict. Therefore we must reject the invitation from Mr.
Clinton. Canadians must stand firm and push the American
government to back away from the brink of yet another gulf war.
We must do that by actively supporting the United Nations and
multilateral efforts to develop workable diplomatic solutions. We
must work to involve other countries, not just the United States,
in the inspection process and to end American dominance in the
process.
Canada has the credibility and the record to accomplish this
kind of objective. We have seen that with the work that was done
on land mines. We have seen that we have the credibility to seek
an alternate path rather than military conflict.
In coming here tonight to this debate I was remembering back to
the gulf war. During that war young people set up a peace tent
outside Vancouver City Hall because they were distressed by what
they saw as growing military escalation they had no part of and
the leaders of the country were taking us into.
The question today is what do we teach our kids? Are we as
Canadians willing to truly and genuinely work for global
disarmament and global security, or will we sit by and
participate with the American government in this growing
escalation and conflict? The horror of the war is borne by those
who survive the death of their loved ones and the destruction of
their homes and communities.
The dictator this is meant to be about—and let us not forget
it—retains power and grows even stronger. We need aggressive
diplomacy. We need tough negotiations, for example, to encourage
Iraq to come forward with compliance by agreeing to a timetable
to end economic sanctions. We should be part of a middle power
effort to bring about diplomatic solutions.
I have a question for the prime minister. Does the government
have the guts and the courage to work for a peaceful solution?
Does it seek to work for global disarmament? Will the Government
of Canada rush to the slippery slope of human destruction based
on military might?
We in the NDP implore the government to stop, to count to 10 and
stop this madness of impending war. Canada will not be better
off. The people of Iraq will not be better off. Nor will global
security be better off. That is why the motion and the
invitation have to be rejected.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga West.
The United States has formally requested Canada's assistance in a
possible air strike against Iraq, enforcing Iraq to uphold United
Nations Security Council resolutions.
Although the United States has not requested combat troops, it
has requested non-combative military support. Before any
military support or actions could ensue, and in the hope of
protection for innocent victims, we must carefully examine the
ramifications of a possible air strike.
Canada has set examples through its peacekeeping forces and
through initiatives such as removing land mines to make the world
free and allow children to run. It will continue to protect
innocent victims from being persecuted by any force in many
corners of the globe.
It is, however, in our best interest and in the interest of
those directly affected to work toward a workable diplomatic
solution to this situation. In the event of diplomatic failure
we must act as a conscientious nation, believing in peace, order
and responsible government. We must stand behind the United
Nations to protect the lives of innocent people.
Nuclear development by Iraq and the continual creation of germ
warfare technologies by Dr. Germ is something we cannot overlook.
It cannot be overlooked by the United Nations, Canada or any
other nation.
Based on precedence alone, the United Nations cannot stand by
and allow Saddam Hussein to continue his production of tools of
mass destruction.
2110
We are dealing with a man of no conscience. Saddam Hussein is a
leader who has repressed his own people and viciously attacked
the peoples of surrounding countries. Therefore we cannot sit by
naively in the hopes that his development of nuclear warfare will
have no grave repercussions all around the world.
We must not lose sight of Saddam Hussein's wanton and reckless
aggression. He turned chemical weapons upon his own people in
Iraq in 1988 with complete disregard for human life.
In 1991 Saddam Hussein launched Scud missiles against Saudi
Arabia and Israel. By all accounts he is continuing to develop
tools of destruction and the means to deliver them. Other
nations are guilty by association and by helping his supply. This
is all in direct violation of explicit UN security council
resolutions.
Israel suffered 39 Scud missile attacks during the gulf war. The
population had to don gas masks. It was traumatic. It is
reported by the United Nations chief arms inspectors in Iraq that
Israel is to be a potential target of Iraqi missiles, this time,
however, armed with chemical weapons which could wipe out large
segments of its population and potentially that of others in the
surrounding areas.
The possibility of such an attack is frightening beyond measure.
The world has never been faced with such a threat or such a
horrific form of devastation.
It is for those reasons we must make a call to the world to
force Saddam Hussein to respect United Nations resolutions. The
need for the international community including Canada to confront
and stop Iraq is a necessity for all those who are concerned with
global peace and security.
I was in synagogue at 7.30 this morning saying memorial prayers
for my late sister, Joan Abbey Pass, and my late Uncle Nathan
Cummings. A young man, David Schneiderman, was there also for
his late dad. He read a poem that I feel is pertinent to the
grave situation we face tonight. It is called “Why Do We
Pray”. It is an excerpt from “When Bad Things Happen to Good
People” by Harold Kushner and reads:
We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end war;
For we know that You have made the world in a way
That man must find his own path to peace
Within himself and his neighbour.
We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end starvation
For You have already given us the resources
With which to feed the entire world
If we would only use them wisely.
We cannot pray to You, O God, to root out prejudice
For You have already given us eyes
With which to see the good in all people
If we would only use them rightly.
We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end despair,
For You have already given us the power
To clear away slums and to give hope
If we would only use our power justly.
We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end disease,
For You have already given us great minds
with which to search
out cures and healing
If we would only use them constructively.
Therefore we pray to You instead, O God
For strength, determination and will power,
To do instead of to just pray;
To become instead of merely to wish.
I believe that U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spoke
unequivocally about the reality of Saddam Hussein when she called
the Iraqi president a liar, an obstructionist. I wish he would
listen and would read this prayer and put it into practice. When
she was talking about his approach to arms inspection she said he
had lied, delayed, obstructed and tried to deceive.
Our foreign affairs minister and our prime minister have said
that the conduct of the Government of Iraq is not acceptable at
this point. All of us favour long term stability in the Middle
East and the building of a safe, secure and economically viable
region for all people who choose to live there. Therefore we
must find the means to apply effective international pressure on
Saddam Hussein and stop his never ending challenge to the UN arms
inspectors and his ignoring of the United Nations and the
development of potential horrendous death weapons.
In the end it is the Arab Middle East which faces the gravest
danger of weapons of mass destruction.
That is why we must stand behind the United Nations in order to
secure peace and stability for our world and generations to come.
Let us home Saddam Hussein comes to his senses and let some
nations of the world stop selling them arms. Let our diplomacy
work in the interest of all mankind.
2115
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, first of all let me say that unlike other times in my
brief stay in this place, this is not an issue that I rise with
any sense of joy to debate or discuss. Frankly, I see it as less
of a debate and perhaps more putting on the record our feelings
as parliamentarians and living up to our responsibilities. I am
sure there is no one in this place who is particularly enjoying
this evening's discussion.
As our Prime Minister said, we are at least debating this
issue in advance of a decision. There are some who might cast
aspersions on that, but I believe that to be the case. I believe
that is truly one of the many principles that make us uniquely
Canadian.
It is the Canadian way in terms of one of the differences. In a
story I was told the distance between the government benches and
the opposition benches is the distance between two people
standing on the edge with a sword extended in each hand, and the
tips of the swords merely touch. It is a symbolism that we are
not a warring people, that we tend to fight our battles in places
like this, that our weapons are our minds, that our ammunition is
words and that our victims often are simply ideas and not people.
At the same time, our victories are also the result of those
ideas and hopefully in some cases the implementation of them.
We are not by nature a warring people. Often we seek consensus
first, we seek compromise and we always seek a negotiated
settlement. In my view, we will continue to live by and large by
those very basic Canadian principles. Diplomacy is job one in
Canada and with our representatives around the world.
Reality, however, says that to maintain our principles and our
way of life we may, from time to time, when our backs are to the
wall, when consensus is not possible, when compromise has failed
and when negotiations have ended, be forced to make a difficult
decision. This, in our great democracy, is one of those times,
sadly.
In determining what message I wanted to share with members in
this place and with Canadians watching this evening,
particularly those in my riding, I talked with and asked a good
friend of mine, the member for Thornhill, about some of the
issues. She talked about how seven years ago people from her
riding watched on CNN as people were huddled in shelters,
wearing gas masks, as Tel Aviv was being bombed by scud
missiles.
We all know that certainly one of the major targets of Saddam
Hussein happens to be Israel. She made the point to me that there
are people in her riding, and in mine, Shaarei synagogue, who
would be looking at that and seeing their friends and families in
jeopardy and who would be worried about them from seven years
ago. Today, seven years later, they see the very same situation,
not quite there yet, but people lining up to get gas masks.
What an incredible sight in 1998, in this world that is
fundamentally so small, to see civilians lining up to get gas
masks in anticipation of chemical warfare.
How can we tolerate that? When compromise, as I said, has
failed, then we have to look at what else might take its place.
2120
I also talked with a good friend, an Ottawa cab driver. He name
is Mel. Mel is from Lebanon. He pointed out to me how Lebanon
becomes the battleground of many of the wars that go on in the
Middle East and the terrible travesty, the pain, the killing, the
death and the suffering that goes on in his country. He pleaded
with me to stand here and say please, everybody, just stop the
killing. It is easy to say. In an ideal world we would all love
to be able to do that, whether it was in the Middle East, Ireland
or wherever it was in this world. I said to Mel I am not sure I
know how to do that.
How will military action put an end to this? Only if it is
united, only if it is strong and only if every other avenue of
diplomacy, compromise and consensus building has failed and we go
united to solve this problem once and for all.
We are in a partnership. We cannot have it both ways. We
cannot be part of NATO and rely on the protection of NATO forces
and the protection of our neighbour to the south, and our
relationship with them, and then, when a moment of conflict
arises say sorry, we are just simply not going to be part of
that.
What President Clinton has apparently asked for, we are told, is
support. He is not looking for frontline troops. I regret and I
fear that day may come. I suppose in reality it is very
possible.
The fact is there are men and women who have fought tyranny in
this country, grandfathers, parents, aunts and uncles of many of
us here, who have died for democracy, for the principles of
consensus, of compromise and of negotiated settlements.
That is fine when we are talking about peacetime. We are not
talking about a strike here or a labour negotiation. We are
talking about an individual who simply refuses, having been given
every reasonable opportunity, to comply not with a dictate from
Bill Clinton, not with a dictate from the Prime Minister or from
the United Kingdom, but with the United Nations resolution that
clearly says that chemical weapons should be banned. He refuses
to allow independent United Nations teams access to places where
we fear he is storing these weapons.
Will he use them? I do not think there is a doubt in the world.
If we are as a free society to back down from this tyranny, all
other avenues having failed, I think we do a terrible disservice
to our children who trust us to make these decisions. I hope and
I pray that they are the right decisions.
But at the end of the day, in addition to the principles that I
have talked about, I believe there is one fundamentally strong,
clear and concise Canadian principle that we all must live with
and that is that we back our friends and we support them, not in
all things, not if we believe they are wrong. But in this case
the evidence is irrefutable.
The worldwide stage is so small that anyone can see that Saddam
Hussein is poised at whatever moment we know not to use whatever
weapons we know not, with no compunction. It is very frightening
to live in a world like that.
I would say to those who stand and speak in all sincerity that I
do not doubt their sincerity, I do not doubt their passion, I do
not doubt their desire for peace. I do not doubt that there is
not one single person in this place who would ever want to see
this country go to war. I do not think that there are war
mongers in here. But I do believe that when we cut through all
the passion we hear that we should simply keep taking, that there
must come a point when we recognize Saddam Hussein is not
listening and that we are jeopardizing the safety of not only the
Middle East, Israel and Lebanon but indeed of Canada.
2125
I for one will not sit and do nothing and pray that we will
continue to have meetings and discussions. I for one believe
that what our Prime Minister and our cabinet will be deciding
tomorrow will be extremely important, and I support that decision
wholeheartedly.
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker, I will be
sharing my speaking time with my hon. colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska.
[English]
It is with a sense of regret that I rise before this House today
because today the Government of Canada has agreed to send troops
into harm's way. Do not get me wrong, I have learned the lessons
this century has taught. I understand that when tyranny is
permitted to reign the entire world is in danger. I understand
that when freedom is confronted with danger, action must be
taken. It is not this government's decision that offends
Canadians, it is the way this decision was made.
Last week in this House my party put forward a motion to have a
debate in this House as to whether Canada would participate in a
U.S. led action against Iraq. The government turned down the
motion and dismissed it as hypothetical. The Minister of Foreign
Affairs went on national television and said: “You can't make a
decision until you know what is being decided”. It is words
like those that instil confidence in the hearts of all Canadians.
Now we know what has been decided upon. Unfortunately for this
House and, more important, unfortunately for all Canadians, what
was decided came not from the Prime Minister's office. Canada's
decision came directly from the White House in Washington D.C.
Now, as all Canadians are aware, it is because President Clinton
phoned the Prime Minister to ask for a favour that we meet in
this Chamber to discuss what our nation's role should be.
It is not because the Prime Minister understood last week that
there was a perilous situation growing in the Persian Gulf that
might affect the lives of young Canadians. It is not because the
Prime Minister has foresight that we are here. It is not because
the Prime Minister wants to take a stand for what is right that
we are here. We are here because President Bill Clinton asked
the Prime Minister to do him a favour.
We are thankful that the Prime Minister has finally understood
that Canada should have a role, that there are dangers in the
world and obliged the president. Our only concern is that
Canada's leaders do not have the understanding or the courage to
assure Canadians what our role will be.
Tonight's debate in this Chamber is an excellent example of how
this Liberal government simply does not respect the people it
represents. We have entered into a debate over the most
important decision a government will ever have to make, whether
to send Canada's young men and women into harm's way. Remember
that the government agreed to the American request because there
is a danger in the region, there is a threat of war. As much as
it is a terrible thought, when there is a war there is a danger
of people dying.
This government thinks this is a serious enough matter to send
Canadians into harm's way but it does not think it is serious
enough to introduce a votable motion for tonight's debate. It
does not think it is serious enough to allow members to question
government ministers and this government does not think sending
young Canadians into harm's way is important enough to ensure
that at least 20 members are in this Chamber to debate this
issue.
I rose to speak about Canada's preparedness for this mission. I
wanted to ask the government what forces Canada had and if they
would be ready to go. I have so many questions for this
government but it will not answer. For example, the 1994 white
paper on defence calls for the Canadian forces to be able to
deploy a joint task force headquarters and a naval task group,
three separate battle groups or a brigade group, a wing of
fighter aircraft and one squadron of tactical transport aircraft.
I wanted to ask this government if it had fulfilled these white
paper requirements and if Canada had these forces in place, but
there is nobody on the government side to answer.
2130
I wanted to ask if we had land forces available and, if so, what
units? Do we have air forces available and, if so, what units?
Do we have sea forces available and, if so, what units? There is
nobody on the government side of the House to answer my questions
and they are relevant questions.
For example, what is the status of our biological and chemical
defence? Do we have an antidote on hand for anthrax and VX gas?
How many Canadian forces personnel have recently completed the
desert warfare course? What is the extent of our nuclear,
biological and chemical weapons defences?
I do not raise these questions to scare Canadians. I raise
these questions so the government will have the opportunity to
reassure our forces and their families that Canada's government
is looking out for them and will take all the required measures
to ensure that they will be as safe as possible. I wonder why
the prime minister has not reminded this House that the first
time poison gas was used in warfare was against the Canadian
troops in World War I.
We are sending troops to a region because Saddam Hussein has
chemical and biological weapons. I hope this government
understands its responsibility. Yet, we know that these
decisions are tough for this Liberal government. Time ran out
when the president phoned. The government does not have time to
take a public opinion poll. A request is on the table that the
prime minister cannot duck. There is no place to hide. He will
have to make a decision and he will have to act.
While there is no place to hide, there is a place to stand. On
principle. This is not familiar ground with this Liberal
government. It is new for this government, especially when
standing on principle happens to mean standing with Britain and
the United States.
Let me try to be helpful. Let us make things easier for the
government. It does not have to declare its support for the
United States. Instead, it can declare its support for the
United Nations, for the rule of law and for the principles of
civilized, responsible state behaviour.
Iraq is an aggressor. It was punished in 1991 and it remains
outside the community of nations because it refuses to meet its
obligations under UN security council resolutions. Those
resolutions remain in force to this day.
Therefore, the choice of the government should not have been so
tough. It can put Canada on the side of those who take the 1991
UN resolutions on Iraq seriously, including the enforcement of
those resolutions, or it can put Canada on the side of those who
want to minimize the importance of the United Nations.
Being on the side of principle will not burden or diminish
military too much. After all, we have been asked to make a
reasonably small contribution to the effort and support of the
integrity of those security council resolutions.
Is this government prepared to take those resolutions seriously
or it is prepared to see them continuously ignored?
It has never been clear to us on this side of the House whether
it is the Liberal view that Canada should always look the other
way or that Canada should align itself with those whose belief,
when faced with lawlessness, is that it is always better to wait
and talk and, when faced with real trouble, stick one's head in
the sand. If so, it would be consistent with where they have
been in the past on this very issue.
After all, it was the prime minister who, when he was leader of
the opposition, called for all Canadian forces to return to
Canada as soon as the first shots in the 1991 gulf war were
fired. I hope the courage he is displaying today will remain
with him if diplomacy does fail and if shots are fired again. He
will need courage. All of Canada and all of the world will need
courage because when shots are fired there is no telling how
Saddam will respond. That is precisely why Canada must take
part.
Standing on principle is new territory for the leader of the
Liberal Party. However, if he stands strong, my party will be
his ally, and all those who love justice will side with him and
he will see that his footing will be strong.
As Canada embarks on this journey with its allies, I want to
take this opportunity to assure all those who love peace in
Compton-Stanstead, across Quebec, in Canada and around the world
that the lessons of this century have not been forgotten. When
tyranny is permitted to reign, the entire world is in danger.
When freedom is confronted with danger, action must be taken.
Have confidence that Canada is on the good side.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabasca, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
start by very briefly addressing three major items.
2135
First, the topic of this evening's debate. This is not a
debate, essentially, because there is no opposition of ideas. It
is more like a confessional, where everyone goes to relate his
petty sins and what he thinks about the Iraq situation. We are
extremely disappointed.
Since February 1, we have asked to meet with the Minister of
Foreign Affairs—a meeting that was held on Sunday, February
1—with the Minister of National Defence, and with the Prime
Minister. They refused, claiming there was no emergency. We also
called for an emergency debate in the House, and that too was
refused.
As we have seen in the Prime Minister's statement, they are
now telling us this evening “We need you, parliamentarians.
Parliament does not know what to do, has no position, so now we
need you”. That was the purpose of this evening's debate.
When the Prime Minister started to speak, his words seemed
more like a declaration of war than anything else. We were given
an official position to the effect that Canada was going to support
the United States, not the United Nations but the United States,
for an armed intervention in Iraq. If you look at what has been
said in declarations of war over the last hundred years, what the
Prime Minister had to say was similar. “I have no position. I
need you.”
When the hon. member for Sherbrooke said that the government
had no position, the Minister of Foreign Affairs replied that he
had not listened to the Prime Minister, that it did have a
position. When the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke, he said “We
have no position. We need you”. I think the government has a real
problem of credibility, particularly on the international scene.
The current Minister of Foreign Affairs, who then sat in
opposition, asked the government of the time to give the assurance that
it would not engage in or support any offensive action without first
getting the consent of the House, and that such action would be under
the aegis of the United Nations.
For the House to give its consent, we must have something to vote
on. But I will get back to this later on. It is said that the famous UN
Resolution 687 authorizes any intervention. Today, I asked a question in
the House regarding this issue. I asked what interpretation the Minister
of Foreign Affairs was giving to the resolution.
Again, the resolution was adopted on April 3, 1991. It is not a new
resolution. It is reviewed every six months, but it is not a new
resolution.
It is the resolution which, among other things, asked all countries to
leave Iraq and Kuwait.
It provides that all countries must leave Iraq and Kuwait, that the
territorial integrity is recognized and must now be preserved. It is a
very long resolution which also says we can intervene. At the time, the
five major countries on the UN Security Council—China, France,
Russia, England and the United States—were all in agreement. Today,
China, France and Russia do not agree.
So, before saying we are going to use this resolution to intervene
in Iraq, perhaps it might be appropriate to find out, through diplomatic
channels, what the Russians, the French and the Chinese are going to do.
Will they submit a resolution to the Security Council calling for
an amendment to Resolution 687 in the days to come?
Today, questions were put to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
He does not seem to be up on things. He says: “Yes, but you know
it is not easy”. They seem to be saying we must hurry up and
invade Iraq, teach Saddam Hussein a lesson, because there is a
danger that Resolution 687 might no longer apply or might be
amended.
What we still want is for the government to sit down with
parliamentarians. We learned this evening that the foreign affairs
committee would be discussing the issue tomorrow.
Once again, I would like to digress for a minute. We were
told that the foreign affairs committee might be discussing this
issue tomorrow afternoon. There will apparently be a briefing on
the Iraq issue. This evening the Prime Minister told us that
cabinet would be adopting a position tomorrow morning. The foreign
affairs committee will be receiving a briefing, after the
government has adopted a position.
This is backwards. It makes no sense. It is unbelievable.
Our position remains unchanged. We support the government's
position—not that you have one, but the one you are supposed to
have. We have a position.
2140
What we are asking you to do is perhaps to share information. This
way, you will have the support of this House, which you do not have
right now.
Regarding the resolution, I would like for it to be quoted. Also,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs should take a clear position with
respect to China, Russia and France. And I would like to know, when he
has discussions with his counterparts in these three countries about
amending Resolution 687, is it only for diplomacy's sake, for publicity,
a marketing ploy?
I cannot say that diplomacy is the minister's forte this evening,
at least not today.
Did you see the reaction the Minister of Foreign Affairs right after his
speech, following the hon. member for Sherbrooke? Would you call that
diplomacy? As we say where I come from, he lost it. He had a fit on an
issue that is not one in this House. What will he do before the security
council? How will he deal with China and Russia?
We are quite prepared to co-operate. We did, and so did our leader
on Sunday, February 1, when he phoned the Prime Minister. The hon.
member for Compton—Stanstead put in calls to the office of the defence
minister. Calls were made on Sunday, February 1, but unfortunately, the
minister was away on business. That is understandable. But no one could
be reached. On Monday, we were told there was no big rush, that a
meeting could be arranged if we wanted one. The United States beat the
Government of Canada to it in offering us a briefing.
So, I think there are problems.
I want to mention two things in closing, so as not to take too
long. I have another quote. I know the Minister of Foreign
Affairs does not really like that, but I am going to go ahead with
it. In February 1992, following the conflict, the minister, who
was a member at the time, said: “It is important for Canada to have
a policy in this area. It is important for Canadians to know what
policy the federal government will adopt when it is involved in
major international initiatives. It is vital we know what goals,
objectives and values motivate and colour this sort of initiative.
It is not a matter of automatically responding. It is a matter of
making choices and decisions and holding a proper public debate”.
I think the minister had the opportunity today to act in
accordance with he said in 1990, 1991 and 1992.
He did not, and it is very unfortunate.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to put
the following motion:
That, when the Government of Canada decides on its reply to the
request of the president of the United States for assistance in
the Iraqi crisis, the prime minister shall announce that policy
to the House of Commons by way of ministerial statement and
immediately thereafter there shall be a special question period
for not longer than 45 minutes for questions from all parties.
[Translation]
Why? Because we want assurance from the government and the
Prime Minister that, before Mr. Clinton, Mr. Blair or whoever is
informed of Canada's position, the members of this House will be
told. Furthermore, if the government wants the approval of this
House, as did at the time the member for Winnipeg South Centre, now
the Minister of Foreign Affairs, let it bring this motion before
the House for debate and a vote. A little solidarity and a little
parliamentary work will not hurt.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Richmond—Arthabaska have the unanimous consent of the House to
propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, there is not unanimous
consent.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, needless to say, this is a very important issue which is
before the House tonight. I personally want to say how proud I
am that we are having this debate.
We faced the same issue in 1991.
2145
The member for Richmond—Arthabaska appears not to have been
aware, nor does his leader, who was in the cabinet of the
government at the time, appear to have made him aware of the fact
that a commitment was made by the government of the day to send
Canadian men and women into armed combat without one second of
debate in this House.
The debate did not take place until 12 days after that
commitment was made by the predecessor of the leader of the
Conservative party in the House of Commons today who was in the
cabinet at the time. He should know better than to make some of
the comments he made today unless he wants to rewrite history.
There is no question that it is a horrific decision a government
has to make any time it is called on to put its people and their
lives on the line in a situation of military conflict. It is a
horrific decision because when the weapons come out, people die.
It is a horrific decision because, as we look at the possibility
of bombings in Iraq in the near future, we know that some of
those bombs are going to be there to destroy chemical and
biological weapons and that very destruction is going to release
harmful substances into the world.
It is a horrific situation because when you get into a situation
like that, you never know how far it is going to expand, what
other conflict it is going to ignite.
All but one of the constituents who phoned me today about this
issue and about the debate tonight said please let Canada
continue its efforts toward a diplomatic solution. I do not
think there is any question in this House that is the preferred
solution. I do not think there is any question that is the
preferred solution for our government. But there comes a time
when diplomatic initiatives require the pure and sure and certain
knowledge on the other side that we are prepared to act if those
diplomatic initiatives are not successful in achieving the
desired goal.
Let me be clear in the way I see the situation. Shortly after
the gulf war of 1991, the United Nations imposed economic
sanctions on Iraq and it put clearly in the hands of Saddam
Hussein the ability to remove those economic sanctions, the
ability to again have food, medicine, economic products flowing
freely into Iraq. The UN insisted on only one condition, the full
and complete removal or destruction of all weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq.
Since 1991 the ability to end the economic sanctions, the
ability to again resume trade and the economic benefits that it
would bring to the people of Iraq has been squarely in the hands
of the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. Instead of co-operating with
the United Nations to ensure the identification, the destruction,
the removal of those weapons, he has lied, he has denied and he
has defied the will of the nations of the world as expressed
through United Nations resolutions.
We know that there are horrendous amounts of biological,
chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq thanks to the determination
of a multi-nation, United Nations force in there to try and give
effect to that 1991 resolution. But seven years later they are
still being denied access to such things as, imagine this, one
factory three kilometres by six kilometres capable of producing
50,000 litres of anthrax, botulinum and other weapons of
destruction.
2150
We have talked about how many millions of people could be killed
by one missile carrying these kinds of chemical and biological
weapons. What we have not yet talked about is that this kind of
weapon knows no borders. Botulinum and anthrax do not stop at
the population they were initially intended to kill, to kill
without destroying property. This to me is a very obscene kind
of weapon when we deliberately target human life in a way that
will ensure that property is not destroyed.
I think Canada has no choice but to let Iraq and Saddam Hussein
know that the world will stand behind this UN resolution, that we
will continue our diplomatic efforts, but that in the end we will
not allow this build-up of human destruction to continue. As we
face this decision, I hope we think beyond it as well. Frankly,
I hope we never have to implement it, but I also hope we think
beyond it. I think all Canadians were proud of this country and
the leadership role it took in barely a year, bringing to
fruition a world ban on the production, use and sale of land
mines.
I think the situation in Iraq forces us to ask ourselves some
other very difficult questions and realize that the problem we
are dealing with in Iraq will not be solved only in Iraq. We
have to deal with why, how and who provided the chemicals and the
ingredients that have allowed Saddam Hussein to build up this
arsenal of death.
If we are serious about the debate we are having tonight and if
the world is serious about how drastic the situation in Iraq is,
we must ask ourselves where else the chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons are in this world. If they are that much of a
threat in Iraq, what are we going to do about the threat they
pose across the world? We must ask ourselves what other weapons
are being stockpiled around the world, often with the help of
some of the countries that now want to resolve the situation in
Iraq.
Finally, I think it is important that Canada put its moral
influence behind the last and hopefully successful efforts at
diplomacy. It is important that a nation like Canada, not just
the big powers, is part of this. We have never been an imperial
force. We have never been a military force capable of wreaking
havoc and domination on other nations. We have always been that
middle power, that voice of reason in international affairs.
I hope that our being part of this last effort toward a
diplomatic solution will be an important signal to other nations.
I want to ask one final thing of our government. There is still
tremendous concern about many of our veterans who served in the
gulf war in 1991, about the impacts on their personal health and
safety from the chemical weapons they faced.
2155
I would ask our minister of defence to make sure we have a plan
in place before we send any troops into the Middle East, if that
becomes necessary, to protect their health and to ensure that we
look after them when they return if they have been damaged by
their exposure in the Middle East. I appreciate the opportunity
to speak on this debate tonight.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the Prime Minister
for allowing this debate and also for allowing members such as me
to express their individual opinions freely and openly and
according to individual conscience.
I do not necessarily share the majority view of my colleagues
from my own party but I must speak out in the way I feel. The
question is this.
[Translation]
Should we or should we not participate in a U.S. led military
operation and provide the U.S. with the logistic support it is asking
for?
If ever there was a consensus in this debate, it is around zero
tolerance for Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, brutality, savagery and
cowardice and his systematic violation of human rights, especially those
of the Kurdish people. We cannot let Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi
government continue to defy United Nations resolutions and inspection
teams with impunity.
We cannot let Iraq and the Iraqi government continue to produce chemical
and biological weapons capable of killing people by the millions around
the world.
While there is a widespread consensus about the Iraqi dictatorship,
that of Saddam Hussein, there is no consensus on the approach to
convincing the Iraqi dictator and his government to do as democracy
would dictate, yield to reason and comply with UN resolutions.
[English]
I have to admit, and I find it very sad to do so, that the
United States has gradually become the lone ranger of the new
world order. It seems to me, fond as I am of the United States
and Americans, that since Eisenhower, with the brief exception of
Jimmy Carter, all U.S. presidents seemed to have sought their own
shoot-outs at the O.K. Corral, believing as they seem to do that
U.S. might is inevitably right.
Unfortunately their shoot-outs have had far more serious
consequences to the international world order than that at the
O.K. Corral. They have known the Bay of Pigs under President
Kennedy, the Vietnam war under President Johnson and the
amplification of the Vietnam war by the massive bombing of Laos
and Cambodia under Nixon, the brief respite under Jimmy Carter
followed by the invasion of Grenada under President Reagan. Of
course, there was the Iran Contra operation and, more recently
under President Bush, Panama and of course the 1991 gulf war.
It seems to me, listening to the news, that President Clinton
and his cabinet are sparring for another fight, almost brimming
with eagerness to take on another shoot-out, this time against
Iraq.
Let us give President Bush his due. Iraq had invaded a
neighbouring country and the military operation to free Kuwait
was sanctioned fully by the United Nations.
[Translation]
Several Arab countries supported the deployment of troops to the
Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia had agreed to let its territory be used
for that purpose.
[English]
Today's reality is completely different. There is no invasion
threat by Iraq, which does not have the capacity to do it. There
is considerable diplomatic activity and pressure led by important
nations such as Russia and France, members of the security
council.
2200
There is no clear support at the UN, in the world at large and
certainly not in the Arab world. Saudi Arabia at this time
refuses the use of its territory to any military operation.
[Translation]
The only countries supporting the United States are the United
Kingdom, which has been traditionally tied to the U.S. by a special
friendship, and to a lesser extent Germany. Under the circumstances, why
should we accept to participate in a potential military operation?
[English]
Time calls for caution. I back the words of my colleague for
Davenport for caution, restraint and for continuing diplomatic
activity and pressure, in which we should play a leading role. We
should have nothing to do with any bombing or military operation,
massive or otherwise, which experts hold will not change the
reality and displace Saddam Hussein. It will only provoke
international unrest and cause an untold number of human lives to
be lost.
Further, we should ask this question. Does the U.S. really need
our logistic support to carry out this operation? The U.S., a
mighty formidable power with its own military and logistic
systems, does not need us. What it needs is our name on its
sparse shopping list, to add one more country to the two that
already support it to beef it up.
Given the reality of today's conditions, the example which
should inspire us is that of Lester Pearson. I recall clearly,
during the Vietnam war, on U.S. territory, when he directly
addressed President Johnson, and said “your military operation
flies in the face of common sense, of respect for human life and
world opinion”.
I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to
tell President Clinton that his request is premature and that all
diplomatic avenues have yet to be explored. Given our tremendous
international credibility we should use it and become the leader
in exerting diplomatic pressures on Iraq. We should join Russia,
France, Germany and others to urge them to obey the world order.
I urge caution, restraint and continuing diplomatic pressure.
The answer we should give President Clinton is until all these
avenues have been explored and exhausted, we must defer any
intervention on our part. For the time being we should say no.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there have been discussions with representatives of all the
parties in the House and I believe you would find consent for the
following:
That for the remainder of the debate on the motion now before
the House, the Speaker shall not entertain any requests for the
proposal of proceedings by unanimous consent.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House for the
government whip to move this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to voice my support for a strong and determined effort
to force Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations
security council resolutions.
It is my hope that diplomatic efforts will bring about a
resolution to this crisis first. However, if diplomacy fails,
Canada has a moral obligation to support her allies in a military
strike against Saddam Hussein.
2205
I have listened to the dissertations of many in this House over
the course of the evening. The one that particularly comes to
mind is that presented by the member for Vancouver East, an NDP
member, who really felt it was inappropriate to give support to
this particular motion and to give support to our allies, the
United States and the United Kingdom, in their efforts to enforce
this resolution.
This world is becoming a more dangerous place. If you look at
the events that are taking place throughout the world, it is
clear that, one by one, conflicts are being added to conflicts as
each year goes by.
I can recall a recent conversation with ex-military personnel
who brought certain points to my attention about conflict areas
in this world. It is incumbent upon those who are not the
creators of these conflicts to stand firm, to be prepared and to
assist those who may have a need against some aggressor.
The NDP member felt that there should be no action taken. I
would like the NDP member for Vancouver East to talk to her
colleague from Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar who was assaulted at
one point in time while walking home innocently along a street
here in Ottawa.
There is a need to check the aggression of some individuals in
this country, in this community, and certainly in the world. I
think of the need for a good, efficient, well-armed police
department to be able to handle every affair that comes along
that may threaten or jeopardize the peace. That also applies to a
well-equipped military to deal with those offenders, if you will,
of international peace.
I believe that is where Canada should play a part with our
allies to check the aggression of some of those on an
international level that will choose to inflict their will upon
someone else. I believe Canada has a moral obligation to do that,
that we must lend military support as well as political support,
that we must put an end, with our allies, to terrorism
internationally.
There is no question that our government has a responsibility to
be clear with all Canadians on the status of this situation
before us. It calls for assistance from our allies. I know to
date this government has not made that commitment to action in
Iraq and is still contemplating that matter. I think it is
important that the Canadian government stand up and voice its
support to take action against Saddam Hussein.
I recall from the 1991 situation where Canada stood behind our
NATO allies to approach that conflict in an aggressive manner.
Saddam Hussein had to be stopped. I recall that there were many
within the Arab community in our country who had concerns about
that, that there seemed to be this effort on the part of Canada
supporting the United States which was supporting Israel. That is
not what it is all about. It is about an aggressor who is trying
to inflict his will upon someone else uninvited.
I think that to our Arab friends it should be made clear why
Canada supported the U.S. and other NATO countries in attacking
Saddam Hussein.
It can only be answered because it is Canada's moral obligation
to do so, to rid the world of a threat to world peace.
2210
Second, I think it is important for those who are from the
region who immigrated to Canada to understand that action taken
against a man like Saddam Hussein is not an intent to punish
those in the region or even in Iraq, but to target a despot who
is attempting to disrupt peace. Saddam Hussein has made no
effort in sparing even his own people in strong action, in
violating their rights as human beings and even destroying them.
Again, I am encouraging the Liberal government to take a strong
position. I know it will be deliberating this evening and
tomorrow over this matter. I think it is incumbent upon all of
us to offer our opinions as it has requested and our support.
It is interesting to note that the British government had this
debate some weeks ago. It was very clear in my reading of the
Hansard responses to the Iraqi situation upon viewing the
UN report about the accumulation of various weapons that Saddam
Hussein had been engaged in. The government came out very clear
on the position that it was going to take. It opened itself up
to questions. It sought a very legitimate line of questioning
from all the opposition parties.
I know the government side here has chosen not to do that. Be
that as it may, I think this does spell out a much greater
openness. It offers greater support in a very timely fashion. It
certainly allays the fears of those who may have questions that
are unanswered in this debate. The British cabinet went through
its procedure and opened up the matter. It was on the public
record.
From the very beginning, in spite of the fact that the British
government had deployed some of its troops, one aircraft carrier
into the gulf and one on its way, it still supported diplomatic
resolution to the crisis. That is important.
I believe it is necessary for Canada to involve itself with the
United States and the United Kingdom as a show of support. I
believe Germany is also onside now. Saddam Hussein will have to
think twice if he intends to obstruct those who are on the UN
inspection team. He will have to think twice and open his door
again. I think that is the intent of this unified effort.
It must also be clear to Saddam Hussein that if he rejects the
request by our allies, then strong action will be taken. For the
most part it is much easier to convince a dictator to comply if
you have an aircraft carrier sitting off the coast and the threat
is immediate.
I know that we have an opportunity to deploy our military in
support. I believe from my examination of the military, and I am
not saying I am an expert, we have very well equipped troops in
some areas. I believe those troops should be offered. I am sure
when the government makes its decision it will do so in that
support. I am trusting that will happen.
2215
Let us deal with the argument that we have been asked to bow to
every American whim. It has been raised a couple of times, once
on the government side and once or twice over here. Proponents
of this view argue that President Clinton is simply trying to
deflect attention from his own domestic troubles.
This statement came up in debate in the British parliament. It
became pretty clear that British parliamentarians would not buy
that statement at all. Prime Minister Blair and the secretary of
state clearly pointed out that the threat was immediate and
against those in the region as well as anyone in Europe. Who was
to say that some terrorist would not move weapons of mass
destruction that can easily be transported into Great Britain?
That debate took place and the question was answered in this
fashion. UN inspectors, which consisted of the British, the
Americans and others, were prohibited by Saddam Hussein from
inspecting sites that were believed to have certain agents which
could possibly be used in chemical and biological warfare. That
was the point. The threat was that Hussein may have been hiding
other goods from the inspectors. It had nothing to do with
Clinton's problems in the United States.
There are additional areas of support of the issue at hand, the
threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the world. The nations are
supporting not just the Americans but the enforcement of UN
resolutions. These countries are standing up united against a
terrorist.
The Reform Party was clear in its opposition to previous
American requests for military support. When President Clinton
asked our prime minister for military support in Haiti we opposed
that. Why? It was because there was not a clear mandate. The
rules of engagement were fuzzy. There was no plan for
withdrawal. The troops are gone from there now. The situation
is still rather desperate in that country. The leader of the
official opposition clearly pointed out to the government side
the need for a plan, the need for a definite mandate and definite
control over what was happening.
We are not saying when the Americans say jump that everybody
should jump. This situation is much different from the situation
in Haiti. The threat is much greater. There is a need for a
definite set of rules of engagement, a plan. This is one point
that we as an opposition party would put to the government to
ensure that it could relate that point back to the people of this
country.
It is clear that our support for military action would not
simply be in response to an American request. We would be
joining the Americans, the British, the Germans and other allies
in standing up against a terrorist aggressor. We support action
when action is required. On this occasion action is required.
It is incumbent upon Canada to stand united against a dictator,
against terrorism.
2220
We must demonstrate to Saddam Hussein and all Saddam Husseins of
the world that when the international community draws a line in
the sand it is not simply being rhetorical. A clear concern,
even by many south of the border, is that when we draw a line in
the sand we mean it.
I do not think it would be in our best interest in the
international community to be laughed at behind closed doors for
drawing a line in the sand and running the other way or sitting
on the fence. It should be clear that we will act if it is
necessary.
Our military has a proud history of fighting for democracy and
freedom. I have had the opportunity to travel with vets over to
Europe and listen to their experiences, their dedication, their
loyalty and their determination. I know that other members
across the way have joined in such excursions. It is very moving
to listen to veterans of the second world war and other theatres
of action. It moves me as a citizen who has never been engaged
in a war because they fought for freedom.
Throughout the country's history Canadian forces have
demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to defending freedom.
Whenever they were called upon our forces rose to the occasion
with outstanding bravery and competence. Our forces did an
outstanding job in the 1991 gulf war. They have since gained
much experience in peacekeeping missions overseas. I think of
the Bosnia matter where several thousand of our troops gained
experience in that theatre. They served professionally and with
much competence. We have much to be proud of through their
actions.
Contrary to what our colleagues in the Conservative Party have
suggested tonight, I have every confidence that members of our
military will rise to the occasion. They know their limitations
and they know what they can accomplish. They often have a habit
of exceeding our expectations time after time. I believe this
mission will be no exception.
In summary, we want to see a peaceful diplomatic resolution to
this conflict. However, we have a moral obligation to stand
united with our allies if necessary. We must not allow dictators
to make a mockery of the international community. Our military
is capable and prepared to act. Let us demonstrate to Saddam
Hussein that we will not tolerate his terrorism.
United let us show that our support will be military as well as
moral and political.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my
time with the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood.
It is the second time in the House that I have risen to speak in
a debate relating to the same individual and whether not Canada
should participate militarily in the situation in Iraq. We did
this in 1991 and we are doing it again tonight. I have not
changed my mind since then. I believed then that we should have
gone further and I believe tonight that if all else fails we have
to participate.
Since the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989 the Canadian
forces have played an increasingly important role in promoting
international peace and security around the world. They have
participated in an unprecedented number of peace supported
operations during this time. It appears we may be entering into
one more operation.
As we all know, Iraq has been refusing to let American officials
and then later the whole United Nations team conduct weapons
inspections. The importance of this refusal cannot be
understated.
2225
As a condition of the ceasefire agreement between Iraq and
coalition forces in the gulf war the UN special commission,
UNSCOM, was formed to supervise in part the destruction of Iraq's
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
In addition to that initial destruction of Iraq's arsenal, the
force was to develop a long term plan for monitoring and
verifying Iraq's continued compliance with the commitment not to
use, develop, construct or acquire prohibited weapons or
equipment. These envoys have been taking place right up until
the present day, or at least until Mr. Hussein refused their
entry.
Iraq must continue to allow weapons inspection teams to conduct
their investigations. Saddam Hussein has shown in the past his
disrespect for the norms and laws of the global community.
Clearly his refusal to permit the required inspections is a test
of our resolve to keep peace in that region.
If he can escape reprimand in his refusal he will continue to
secretly rebuild his military. This is not the first time he has
tried to obstruct inspections. Personally I do not think it will
be the last time. That is why we cannot allow this to continue.
A man of his ethics cannot be allowed to create weapons of mass
destruction. Kuwait is proof of his intentions.
The potential for human devastation is great. A man like
Hussein does not create these weapons only for deterrence
purposes. He intends to use them.
Our options are simple. We can do nothing. The world can lay
back and let Hussein rebuild his military, but we cannot then be
surprised when he again attacks another country. It will be our
own fault.
Let me say that next time there will be countless casualties and
fatalities. The death toll of the innocent will be extreme. His
next engagement will make the gulf war look like a walk in the
park. I suspect that if he does not use chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons during what will be his initial attack, he will
undoubtedly use them in retaliation to a counter attack on his
forces.
To do nothing is not a viable option. By acting now we can save
possibly millions of innocent lives down the road. While there
is always the chance of civilian casualties or even fatalities, I
am sure there will be fewer now than if no action is taken.
We must remember that we value human life above all else. We
are not so sure Saddam Hussein holds that same value. If he is
allowed to strike, who knows how many innocent lives could be at
stake? I truly believe that acting now is fully justified by his
violation of the ceasefire agreement.
Another point that must be stated is that military action is not
always the best response. This issue has been simmering for
quite some time. In fact, some would say that it has been
simmering since the ceasefire was signed on February 27, 1991.
Every effort possible has been made to settle this very difficult
problem. It is imperative that every diplomatic avenue be
exhausted prior to resorting to force.
Unfortunately diplomatic efforts have failed thus far to resolve
the issue. While a diplomatic solution is always possible
Hussein's refusal must not go unchallenged. That is why military
action must not be ruled out. That is why we are here tonight
debating Canada's involvement in a potential military action
against Iraq.
The next question is whether a U.S. led attack is justified or
whether we should wait for the United Nations to sanction an
attack. My response is that Iraq is violating the agreement
signed under the auspices of the United Nations. That agreement
must be upheld. In that sense we already have the authority.
The need for action also presents Canadians with other questions
than just if action is necessary. We must also ask ourselves
whether our forces are ready and capable of participating in such
a mission, and to what extent. The most important question is
not just if they are ready and capable but should they be. It is
not enough to say our forces can participate in foreign missions.
We must be able to say that our forces are combat capable at all
times.
This is an important point. There is a significant distinction
between a peacekeeping force, which some people believe is a
desire of Canadians only, and being combat capable which is what
Canada needs.
Traditionally peacekeeping involved sending troops to keep a
pace that had already been established. Originally peacekeeping
missions did not involve more than land troops and perhaps air
supply support. They did not involve all three components of our
forces.
Combat capable forces entail a force which has the ability to
react quickly to any type of military threat, a force that can
integrate all three components of forces to mount a formidable
counter attack.
That means we need to maintain our air force, our naval force and
our land force. This includes necessary equipment to fulfil their
assigned tasks.
2230
Even peacekeeping has changed dramatically over the years. In
modern day missions each component has become vital to the
overall mission. At various points throughout our missions in
the former Yugoslavia, we had all three components of our forces
engaged. So even peacekeeping requires more of a multipurpose
combat capable force.
I would like to highlight the achievements of our forces. Our
troops reached out to help and spared no effort in responding to
humanitarian crises in Rwanda. While they could not stop the
bloodshed, our tiny force was able to save thousands of lives.
They continued to assist the international community in dealing
with the tragic conflict in the Balkans. Their military
contribution, as I said earlier, has included land, sea and air
capabilities, as well as a wide range of humanitarian activities.
They helped stabilize the volatile situation in Haiti and
initiated a wide range of humanitarian projects throughout the
country. They led a multinational response to ensure the
delivery of humanitarian assistance in central Africa, thereby
serving as a catalyst to help break the impasse that kept
refugees in camps for two years.
At the same time, Canadian forces personnel have maintained
their traditional roles here at home including search and rescue,
and during the Saguenay region floods, the flooding of the Red
River and most recently in the ice storm in eastern Ontario,
Quebec and New Brunswick.
Through all types of challenges like I have mentioned, the
Canadian forces have proven themselves ready and capable of
responding to the needs of their country and to whatever
international peace support operations they are assigned. To me
that is a multipurpose combat capable force.
The present situation in Iraq needs to be resolved. If
diplomatic efforts fail, we must not only consider military force
but ensure that through the use of force Iraq complies with the
United Nations Security Council resolutions.
When all else fails, Iraq must be stopped and Canada must be
part of it.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to emphasize
the appropriateness of consulting parliament today on this very
important matter. This is an emergency debate on possible Canadian
intervention in Iraq.
Having been a member here since 1993, I believe I see a
progression in the government's attitude that bears pointing out.
In my opinion, it is indeed very important for parliament to be
formally consulted before the government takes a position, when
there is no immediate emergency forcing a very rapid decision. In
the present situation, and other similar ones, I believe it is
important for the government to take time to find out what all
parties think of the situation.
Unlike matters of internal policy, often the strength of
consensus that can could come out of such debates would further
strengthen the Canadian government's position in international
policy.
The attitude evident in this consultation of parliament today
on this important matter, intervention in Iraq, would have to be
repeated in the position adopted by the Government of Canada.
Let us recall that the current situation is the result of the
Gulf War. As a result of that war, the UN imposed some quite
severe conditions on Iraq, arms destruction, compliance with
certain requirements, with a view to ensuring that the war could
not resume and that the same situation would not repeat itself.
That position was taken by the UN. It is under the
responsibility of the UN Security Council. I feel that care must
be taken to respect these authorities. The United Nations
Organization is a body that can be a worthwhile tool in crisis
situations, provided its power is acknowledged and provided that,
each time there is a crisis situation, we do not decide to act in
parallel, thus exposing its powerlessness.
2235
Therefore, the government's position will have to take into account
respect for the United Nations. In its past diplomatic efforts—going
as far back as the Suez crisis—our country has, more often than not,
respected the UN's moral authority as much as possible. Sometimes it did
not do so, even though it should have, and we should reflect on this.
One wonders why we are again facing such a problem following the
gulf war, in which thousands of people died.
When human lives are sacrificed in a war, regardless of the motives of
either side, the losers are those who died and their families.
In a debate like this one, we must be careful not to behave with
triumphalism, or think we have all the solutions. We should be modest
and try to make sure the actions we are going to take are appropriate.
We should take our time and be careful not to do things because we are
angry or in a show of force, since the consequences could be very
negative.
Therefore, every diplomatic effort must be made regarding the
situation in Iraq.
Several members of the international community hope that every
diplomatic effort will be made. They hope an innovative approach can be
found, that we can call on countries that may have better relations with
Iraq. It is important to exhaust all diplomatic channels before
resorting to a military intervention. However, should diplomatic efforts
fail, it would important to come back here to make sure our position
would be based on all the available information.
I do not think that anyone in the House disputes the fact that
Iraq must comply with the UN resolutions, must meet the conditions
laid down, because international peace demands that there still be
respect for the mandate the UN has been given and is responsible
for carrying out. It is there to speak for the world community and
I therefore think we must ensure that the decision taken in respect
of Iraq is complied with. No one disputes this.
We may, however, want to ensure that there are no sanctions,
such as military strikes, which will obviously have very painful
consequences, including for the civilian population. It is very
rare that wars can be conducted without civilian casualties. I
think this aspect deserves considerable attention.
How can we be sure that agreements will ultimately be
respected and that there will be an end to the present opposition
between a country such as Iraq, which is a middle power, and a
giant like the United States, so that we do not find ourselves
facing a crisis such as this every four or five years? There are
lessons to be learned from the past. Why was the Gulf War not
conclusive, and what is the reason for Iraq's present attitude? I
think it is important to try to understand this perception, the
deep motivations of a country such as Iraq, so that the solutions
to the crisis truly address the root problems.
There are therefore objective players that must have a role in
this diplomatic offensive—I am thinking in particular of all the
Arab nations, of Russia, and of all countries with possible special
links with Iraq, which have had more direct contacts—in order to
persuade Iraq to comply with the UN conditions.
2240
The Bloc Quebecois indicated it would be appropriate for the
position that the government will probably take tomorrow or in the
coming days to be reassessed later on, should diplomatic efforts not be
as successful as anticipated. I do not see any point in painting
ourselves into a corner right away and making a final decision that
would automatically lead to military strikes.
Even if no Canadian troops were involved in direct combat, Canada
would still have to accept the consequences of supporting the strikes.
This support could have a positive effect in helping to resume
negotiations.
On the other hand, it could lead to the strikes themselves, the results
of which remain to be seen in terms of military effectiveness and impact
on civilian populations.
All these factors must be considered in assessing the current
situation. I feel it is important to make one thing clear. The United
States apparently claims to have the right to act without having to go
back before the security council. A closer look at the conditions
imposed on Iraq by the UN Security Council shows that the current
situation implying an automatic right to military retaliation is not
included.
Before making its position final, I think that Canada should take
this into account and, before supporting any military strikes, make sure
that they have been approved by the UN Security Council and that the
council has confirmed that all the conditions have been met.
Mr Speaker, I see that you are telling me that my time is up. I
will therefore conclude by saying that, before taking a
definitive stand on this—
The Deputy Speaker: Pardon me, you had 20 minutes.
Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, that is what I
originally thought. This will allow me enough time to further
develop my argument on this situation.
In the present situation, looking at the positions adopted by
the international community, on the one hand we have the United
Kingdom, for example, which is clearly alongside the Americans in
this crisis. It is the most staunch of Washington's allies.
On the other hand, France is not keen to participate in a
military operation against Iraq. It continues to exercise
diplomatic pressure for Iraq to give in and allow unconditional
access to all of its sites.
There may be an approach that could be used. Might we not
have a sort of task force made up of countries with attitudes
similar to France's, which could intervene, serve as a mediator in
this situation, so as to come up with a solution other than a
military strike?
As for Russia, they say President Yeltsin is strongly opposed
to military action against Iraq and is making statements which may
seem a bit hotheaded concerning the possibility of a third world
war. That does, however, give us some idea of the impact of a too
hasty authorization for an American attack.
Then there is China, which is opposed to any military action
against Iraq. The majority of the Arab countries are opposed to
military action. These are forces that may play a significant role
in the present situation.
I think there is still time. There are a few weeks left for
a diplomatic offensive, with a difference. In the future, there
should be a call for a joint effort by those who want to avoid a
military offensive and for an in-depth look at the issue.
At the start of my presentation, I was saying that it was
interesting the government should consult Parliament before taking
a definite position. If in fact the government has the wisdom to
find a consensus from the debate here, which is not immediately
obvious, let us look at it in detail.
For example, the New Democratic Party opposed any military
intervention.
2245
Would the New Democratic Party not be prepared to say “Let us
undertake a diplomatic offensive and we will have another debate
afterwards”? If there are no results, it could then reconsider its
position in the light of the efforts made and the results achieved.
The Reform Party quickly indicated its readiness to support
the American position. I suggest it join with the consensus for an
all-out diplomatic approach and then, if it fails to achieve the
desired results, we can reach a consensus on the need for a strike.
The Conservatives' attitude is similar.
I understand that the position of the Liberals presented at
the moment is not necessarily that of the Liberal Party or of the
government as set out in the Prime Minister's speech in this
debate. I think the conditions are there for an acceptable
outcome, one that truly reflects the will of Canadian
parliamentarians and thus of Canadians.
So all the positions set forth here could be elements of a
consensus, which would look a bit like the Bloc's position. In
other words, strikes if necessary, but on the basis of decisions by
the UN Security Council once it has decided that all diplomatic
avenues had been pursued without success.
Above all, there must be another debate before any decision is
taken to have Canada provide military support against Iraq, because
we would then know whether or not the strike was supported by the
UN Security Council. We would know whether or not all nations felt
that diplomatic efforts had failed.
Perhaps three weeks after these efforts, a solution will be
reached. Perhaps not, and the countries who now oppose a military
strike will reach the conclusion that one is necessary because no
other course of action remains. Once again, this could give peace
one last chance.
I will conclude, and it will only take a few minutes. I think
this issue must be approached with great modesty, with great
respect for human life, with faith in the diplomatic tools
available to us, and with our eyes wide open of course.
We are in a situation where there is a history, a particular
reality, as well as a need to find compromises. If the real
objective is to allow inspection of all sites, would there not be
a possible compromise whereby these inspections could be carried
out by representatives of nations acceptable to both parties? Does
this not hold out some possibility?
Having seen some of the aftermath of the Gulf war, where the
Americans won a military battle, I think that the first priority in
defining Canada's position should be the human beings affected by
that war.
In deciding on a course of action, we must ask ourselves how we can
ensure that the people of Iraq, the inhabitants of that country,
have the maximum chances of building a decent life in the future,
and leaving behind this constant threat of military intervention.
I am not judging the Americans and Iraqis. I am, however,
pointing out that there are civilians in the middle of this
battlefield who are not necessarily responsible for the actions of
the Iraqi government. I think this has to be the key criterion in
the position adopted by the Canadian government.
2250
I hope all parties will agree to the consensus proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois, which I will summarize as follows: strikes, if necessary,
after the decision has been made by the UN Security Council and after it
has been established that all diplomatic efforts have failed. Then we
should have the opportunity, in a second debate in the House, when all
the efforts made have been analyzed, to determine whether such strikes
are necessary.
I urge this House and the government to take such a responsible
attitude so that Canada can emerge from this situation with an even
better international reputation.
I particularly want the people who could be affected by a military
strike or by a peaceful diplomatic solution to this problem to be able
to say that parliamentarians who had to debate this issue in the various
parliaments around the world took a responsible attitude. That is what
I want to see happen in this Parliament.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me
to rise today and take part in this debate.
Today we are being asked to consider actions needed to stop a
man out of control, a dangerous man who scoffs at the world
community, a man who holds peace and stability in contempt. The
world must act.
We are morally bound to support a reasonable response to Saddam
Hussein's deplorable and selfish acts. If we do not, our
children and our grandchildren will remember our lack of resolve
with sadness.
Canada has always stood for freedom and decency, peace and
security. Canadians have recognized for a long time that the
defence of Canada does not stop at our borders. Nor does our
interest stop there. As a nation dependent on trade for our
prosperity, as a multicultural country connected to the peoples
of the world, and as a people who believe that we are committed
to working for a peaceful, stable and prosperous world, Canadians
are inextricably internationalists.
Today we are proving that again. We must show our support for
international efforts to ensure the Government of Iraq complies
with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. We must be
willing to use the Canadian forces to show Saddam Hussein that
his actions are totally unacceptable.
The men and women of the Canadian forces have played a long and
distinguished role in a variety of missions in the Middle East.
They have contributed to international peace and security on many
occasions and they must do so again.
I want to emphasize two important points. First, each and every
mission we have carried out in the Middle East has been carried
out under the auspices of the United Nations. We have never
deployed our forces to represent the specific interest of any
nation.
Mr. Speaker, I must break at this time to say I will be sharing
my time with the hon. member for Erie—Lincoln.
In other words, we have only sent our forces to the Middle East
in support of our traditional worldwide contribution to
international peace and security. This time if needed we must
support the international efforts to ensure the Government of
Iraq complies with the United Nations Security Council
resolutions.
The second point I would like to emphasize is that when we have
operated in the Middle East we have made a difference. We have
gained the respect of our allies and other members of the United
Nations. In a wide variety of missions that we have carried out
in that part of the world, we have helped serve the cause of
peace and the sanctity of international law.
The members of the Canadian forces have proved time and time
again that they are more than capable of operating alongside the
best armed forces in the world. Nowhere was this more evident
than in the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Canada's navy demonstrated
its ability to respond quickly and effectively. With no warning,
our naval and air personnel working around the clock prepared the
ships and helicopters for sea and sent them on their way in
record time. It was an example of what the commander of the
Canadian task force called “plain old Canadian pioneering
spirit”.
Once hostilities broke out, Canadian ships were responsible for
protecting the coalition logistics forces in the gulf. I must
emphasize that the Canadian task force commander was the only
non-American officer to be assigned a significant wartime
command.
2255
That Canada assumed tactical control of the coalition logistics
force made up of vessels of some 11 countries was evidence of the
respect that Canadian sailors and ships earned from coalition
partners during operations in the Persian Gulf.
Canada also sent 26 F-18 fighters to the gulf. Known as the
Desert Cats, they flew a wide variety of missions that further
demonstrated the skill and flexibility of the Canadian forces.
Still later we deployed a complete field hospital to the region
to treat coalition casualties as well as Iraqi prisoners of war.
The Canadian gulf war deployment was a logistical triumph. In a
short period we assembled a versatile force and deployed it
halfway around the world. In all more than 4,500 Canadians
contributed to the success of the coalition's mission. The
members of the forces made a difference.
The Canadian forces' performance in the gulf war was simply
outstanding. Their contribution extended well beyond their
numbers and equipment, a tribute to their training, their
versatility and their ingenuity. They received nothing but praise
from our coalition partners.
Our men and women served with professionalism, dedication and
courage in support of the United Nations and in defence of the
values and interests of Canada.
But the Canadian forces did not just show their mettle in the
Persian Gulf. Canada has a long and distinguished history of
peacekeeping service in the Middle East.
In the 1950s very early on in our peacekeeping efforts, Canada
joined in a large multinational UN effort to bring peace to the
Middle East. For over four decades now, Canada has maintained a
vital presence in United Nations peacekeeping operations in the
Middle East. Some were short missions lasting only a few months
and others are still ongoing.
Among other missions, Canada participated in both the first and
second United Nations emergency forces. We contributed to the
United Nations observation group in Lebanon. We assisted with the
United Nations Yemen observation mission and the United Nations
interim force in Lebanon. We were also participants in the United
Nations Iran-Iraq military observer group.
Canada has been a longstanding participant in the United Nations
truce supervision organization, or UNTSO, since 1954. The task of
Canadian forces personnel assigned to this mission is to monitor,
supervise and observe ceasefire agreements and to provide
military observers on the Golan Heights, in south Lebanon and in
the Sinai.
Since 1974 we participated in the United Nations disengagement
observer force, or UNDOF. We still have Canadian forces personnel
serving on the Golan Heights between Israel and Syria. They
provide second line logistic support to UNDOF. Canada also
provides communications detachments to all UNDOF units.
Since 1991 Canada has also participated in the United Nations
Iraq-Kuwait observer mission whose mandate is to monitor the
Iraq-Kuwait border. Canada assists with this task by serving as
UN military observers.
Canada also participates in the multinational interception force
which monitors and enforces various United Nations Security
Council resolutions concerning the import and export of Iraqi
commodities, including oil.
Since 1991 four of our warships have spent three to five months
deployed to the Arabian Gulf area. Our most recent contribution
was HMCS Regina which patrolled the Arabian Gulf from April
3 to July 9, 1997.
The Canadian forces were still contributing to the United
Nations special commission until Saddam Hussein stopped us.
UNSCOM is charged with the inspection and destruction of Iraq's
ballistic missiles as well as its chemical, nuclear and
biological facilities.
We believe that UNSCOM work must not be stopped. It must go on.
It needs to go on to ensure that there is a clear message to
Saddam Hussein, indeed to the world that defiance of this kind of
the UN will not be tolerated. It is this blatant disregard for
the ideals that we stand for as well as the very real threat
posed by weapons of mass destruction that we abhor. We must take
action to resume these inspections and ensure unfettered access.
2300
We must demonstrate our resolve and make it clear to Saddam
Hussein that we will never ever give into his malicious threats
and acts of defiance. We must show him that intransigence is
unacceptable and he must be made to understand that the only
option is the right option. It is for the Government of Iraq to
comply fully with the United Nations security council
resolutions.
As our fine record has shown, Canada has never stood silent on
the issues that matter. What matters now is that the world is
being held hostage to the most destructive force of defiance. In
the face of such defiance, we must not back down. Canada has
played an important role in the ongoing multilateral efforts to
bring peace to the Middle East. We must continue this tradition
by supporting the present and future endeavours to stop those who
would continue to threaten and destabilize the region and indeed
the world.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
privileged to have the opportunity to rise this evening to
address the question of the invitation to Canada by the United
States of America to participate in possible military actions in
the Middle East before—and I emphasize before—a decision is
made by this government.
Sound and reasoned arguments must be made and responded to. The
consequences are too great.
On occasion, critics question the role of members of Parliament,
suggesting that they do little to earn their remuneration. To
such detractors I say stand in our shoes this evening as we
deliberate Canada's role in this impending crisis with Iraq, as
we consider the possible involvement of the well trained, loyal
and brave men and women of our armed forces and, just as
important, the impact on the families of our service personnel:
wives, children, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers.
Let us also not forget the innocent civilian population in Iraq
who could suffer because of the folly of their leader. Let us be
mindful of the cost of war in human terms, in economic terms and
in ecological terms.
The responsibility of committing Canada to a military response
to the current crisis in the gulf is a heavy onus, a commitment
that could jeopardize world security, that could lead to war,
possibly a third world war if Russian rhetoric can be believed.
This onus is most formidable.
We recall the tremendous Canadian contribution to the gulf war
in the winter of 1991 when 3,837 Canadian men and 237 Canadian
women served with distinction. We are grateful that there was
not a single Canadian casualty or prisoner of war taken during
that conflict. Tonight I find myself asking, would we be so
fortunate a second time?
How have we arrived at the brink once again?
The international community has generally backed the United
States in its struggle to get Iraq to comply with agreements and
orders issued at the end of the gulf war in 1991. More recently,
the United States has had trouble rallying support from its
former gulf war allies on military strategy for more air strikes.
Iraq began this latest round of tension by refusing to deal with
the United Nations weapons inspection teams as long as the teams
included Americans. After weeks of exchanging words with Iraq,
the United Nations gave up in mid-November and pulled its teams
out of the country.
After negotiations involving Russia, France and other countries,
the inspectors returned to Iraq, but continued to face day to day
frustrations. Weapons inspectors are checking for the presence
of weapons of mass destruction, including those linked to
biological, chemical and nuclear warfare.
Baghdad believes the weapons inspection process is taking far
too long. Iraqis accuse the Americans on the multinational team
of being spies.
Until the weapons inspections are finished, the United Nations
will not lift economic sanctions against Iraq. Those trade
barriers have been in place since August 1990 when Iraq invaded
Kuwait. We have arrived at a stalemate.
What do we fear? We fear Hussein, a dictator, a leader of a
regime that has no respect for human rights and human values and
who has brutalized his own citizens, including the use of poison
gas against dissident Kurds and who has no hesitation in risking
the safety and security of Iraqi citizens once again for his own
purposes. We fear a regime that is alleged to have tested germ
warfare agents on prisoners and refuses United Nations inspectors
access to dispel such reports.
We fear a regime that launched a germ warfare program and is
said to have stockpiled an arsenal of biological weaponry, a host
of lethal viruses, bacteria and deadly toxins, the victims of
which would suffer a horrible death and again a regime that
refuses to let United Nations weapons inspectors conduct their
work to dispel such reports.
We fear a regime that over the years has been caught with
evidence of continuing efforts to develop weapons of mass
destruction and again refuses to let the United Nations weapons
inspectors conduct their work to confirm such weapons do not
exist.
Let us make no mistake, diplomacy rather than military power to
end the crisis is the preferred solution, the solution we hope
for and the solution we pray for.
Canada has an enviable and well earned reputation as a
peacekeeper. In the tradition of Lester Pearson, the role of
warrior may be somewhat alien but it is one that we are capable
of and will not shirk from.
2305
We must be more than thorough in our deliberations. Are there
compromises and positions that we have not explored? Could the
UN consider lifting humanitarian sanctions which have adversely
and sadly affected the civilian population of Iraq and which have
led to death and disability for innumerable men, women and
children, a record that I am not proud of.
Can we do this without jeopardizing the resolve, strength of
purpose and unity in having Hussein comply with the United
Nations resolutions which we deem so necessary? Are we satisfied
that they are so necessary? Can Canada take an active role to
negotiate a solution satisfactory to all? We have done much but
can we not do more? Can we not work harder to prevent this
pending conflict, to promote a peaceful resolution. All
diplomatic measures must be explored and explored to the point of
exhaustion. But if it fails, military action should be supported
under the United Nations umbrella.
Canada respects the United Nations. Canada respects
international laws. Canada respects agreements signed
thereunder. Unfortunately Saddam Hussein does not. Under the
United Nations security council resolution 687 of April 1991
which set out the ceasefire terms for ending the gulf war, Iraq
is obliged to “accept the destruction, removal, or rendering
harmless of all its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and
ballistic missiles with a range of over 150 kilometres; and
research, development and manufacturing facilities associated
with the above; and to undertake not to develop such weapons in
the future”. One might say that is not terribly difficult to
comply with.
Despite constant Iraqi deceit, concealment, harassment and
obstruction, the United Nations Special Commission, UNSCOM has
succeeded in destroying 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 litres
of live chemical weapon agents, 48 operational missiles, 6
missile launchers, 30 special warheads for chemical and
biological weapons, and hundreds of items of chemical warfare
production equipment. Iraq originally claimed that much of it
was for peaceful use but later admitted its real purpose.
Iraq claimed that the VX nerve gas project was a failure. UNSCOM
discovered that Iraq had the capability to produce VX on an
industrial scale and produced four tonnes. Work was also going
into numerous other agents such as sarin, tabun and mustard gas.
I could go on and on with examples of Iraq's blatant violations
of its ceasefire terms.
UNSCOM is concerned that Iraq may still have operational scud
type missiles with chemical and biological warheads. Critical
missile components, warheads and propellants are not accounted
for nor are 17 tonnes of growth media for biological warfare
agents, enough to produce more than three times the amount of
anthrax Iraq admits it had. Key items of chemical warfare
production equipment are also missing.
The question is can Hussein be trusted. The answer is terribly
obvious. In the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
“There is a clear and present danger. Hussein's flagrant
violation of the United Nations and international law is
intolerable, unacceptable and must cease”. If Saddam Hussein
refuses to comply with the United Nations security council
resolutions, he must be held responsible and accountable for the
pending action.
We earnestly seek a compromise, a negotiated settlement, a
diplomatic solution. Yes, we wish to avoid war and we must
earnestly work to achieve these ends. If this is not possible,
Hussein must know that Canada will stand united with the UN
forces. We must be prepared to act and if action is necessary,
we will.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and as the
official opposition deputy critic for foreign affairs to
participate in this debate concerning the crisis in Iraq. I will
be sharing my time with the hon. member for St. Albert. From now
on all my colleagues will be sharing their time.
Today the issues with respect to Iraq are should we accept or
reject the United States' offer and what to do if reasonable
diplomatic and peaceful efforts fail. This serious issue has
many implications: political, economic, military and above all,
it has human and moral effect.
We should all take note of the problem that we have very few
facts to deal with in this debate.
2310
We need more information from our government so that we can all
effectively debate this issue.
There is a history and pattern of terrorism, lies and betrayal
by Saddam Hussein who has consistently tried to destabilize the
Persian Gulf.
Canada has been involved in the Persian Gulf since 1990 in a
meeting with the United Nations Security Council to ensure a
clear and effective international response to Iraqi aggression.
We have supported various international sanctions against Iraq.
In 1991, we made a commitment to the multilateral force that
defeated Iraq and enforced conditions of peace on Iraq.
In October 1997, the American members of the United Nations
weapons inspection teams were ordered out of Iraq. The terms of
peace were broken.
I have a long list of historical facts but since my time is
limited, I will skip them.
Last month, weapons inspection teams were blocked from 72 sites
in Iraq. Fourteen of these sites were inspected since. We know
there have been some 40 sites in Iraq that have been declared as
presidential palaces since the gulf war. There is no reasonable
explanation beyond weapons sites in a country that has had its
wealth severely curtailed since the gulf war.
It has been confirmed that Iraq has manufactured and stocked
chemical and biological weapons. Iraq has significant stocks of
anthrax, VX nerve gas, botulinum and anflatoxin. It is such
dangerous stuff I cannot even pronounce it, but I know it can
kill millions of people.
Saddam has used chemical weapons on his own people, the Kurds,
during the Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988. By 1989 the Iraqi
ambassador to Kuwait stated that Iraq has enriched uranium. The
world has reasonable grounds to assume that Saddam Hussein will
use these weapons.
Iraq has a history of destabilizing peace activities. Iraq
invaded Iran, Kuwait and attacked Israel. We, the Canadians, are
not against Iraqi people. We know they are victims of Saddam
Hussein, his weapons, his dictatorship, United Nations sanctions
and the war.
We are concerned about human life and human suffering because
there is human life on both sides of the issue whether Iraq is
attacked or not. We are also aware that the lives of Canadian
soldiers are also at stake if we commit our military support.
We have to carefully see if this risk is outweighed or not. This
could have been done if the Liberal government had shown
leadership and had taken a position. Then it could amend it
after the debate.
The Leader of the Official Opposition had to fill in that
vacuum. Before we commit our support, we must meet the six point
criteria as our leader mentioned. So far, we meet three of those
criteria.
There is a serious international threat and it seems that the
diplomatic efforts are failing. Second, there is multinational
support for military action and, third, our role can be within
our fiscal and military capabilities, but we do not know yet if
government is satisfied with the strategy. What is the mission
and plan for the military action and what is the command and
control structure? Is it satisfactory?
We know certainly that we need more information from this
government. Canada must support and co-operate as requested in
order to ensure that the original United Nations resolution 687
that Iraq agreed to following the Persian Gulf war continues to
be respected by Iraq.
We support a diplomatic solution to the crisis caused by Iraq.
That is plan A. Everything that can be done should be done to
ensure that a diplomatic solution is reached. Failing that, we
go to plan B and that plan is military intervention.
2315
We want a solution that avoids all bloodshed and loss of human
life, pain and suffering. That is plan A. By declaring our
willingness to go to plan B, we are sending a strong message to
Iraq. That message is that it either negotiates a solution
diplomatically, fairly and peacefully or the crisis will be
solved by military might.
There still remains a chance that a diplomatic solution can be
reached. Lieutenant-General Amer al-Saadi said that the
discussions have been constructive, very open and realistic, and
therefore he pleads for more time.
We should be sure there is reasonable time for these talks to
continue and be completed before a military intervention. I hope
Saddam Hussein will yield to the military pressure and back off.
I really hope he does, at least for the sake of the innocent
people.
Iraq will either stop producing weapons of mass destruction
through diplomacy and agreement or Iraq will stop producing
weapons of mass destruction by force.
I firmly support the Canadian obligation to ensure that Iraq
complies fully with the United Nations resolution regarding Iraq.
Canada has a long tradition of leading the world in peacemaking
and peacekeeping. We have given a great deal of assistance in
negotiating diplomatic solutions around the world. We have
always participated in the most significant international
efforts. Recently we have much to be proud of in this regard. We
have spearheaded an international land mine ban treaty, we have
assisted in Rwanda, Haiti and Bosnia.
The world knows Canada as a peace loving, diplomatic nation. If
we show support for the U.S., Britain and our allies in the
Persian Gulf, as we have been asked, the world will take notice.
As a nation we want to strive to stand firmly with our
traditional allies for the cause.
We have been asked by the United States to provide
transportation support and search and rescue support in a
non-combative role. This should be left to the military experts
to determine and not to the politicians.
I urge that while committing our support, Canada should become
active in pursuing a diplomatic solution as well and show
leadership.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
often wonder why every few years we stand to debate the most
serious of issues facing any democracy. That of course is
whether we should commit our men and women to defend the
principles in which we believe.
We believe in democracy, which of course is the right of people
to choose their own government. We know that in Iraq there is no
democracy. The people have no right to choose their own
government. But that is not sufficient for us to become involved
in a military adventure on the other side of the world.
We believe in free speech and free expression. We know they do
not exist in Iraq today. But again, that is not sufficient for
us to become involved.
We believe in individual freedom and opportunity, and we know
that the people of Iraq today have a life that is anything but
free. There is no opportunity. Life in Iraq is quite bleak.
But again, I do not believe that is any reason for us as
Canadians to become involved in a military adventure over there.
We expect our leaders to serve their people. Saddam Hussein is
a dictator. He does not serve his people. He uses them and he
abuses them. He has starved the children of his country, and for
that we have to be concerned.
We have the right to protect ourselves, our families and our
children. When that is at risk we do have the right to defend
ourselves.
Saddam Hussein has demonstrated in the past that he has the
capacity to attack. He has attacked his own people. He has
demonstrated his capacity to attack a foreign country. We have
seen that through his invasion of Kuwait. We have seen that
through the scud missile attacks on Israel. Unfortunately he
has also demonstrated that he wants to have the capacity to do it
again because of his failure to abide by UN resolution 687.
2320
He has continued to develop biological, chemical and perhaps
even nuclear weapons. He could attack us with these weapons.
That is why we must be concerned, and that is why we must think
about defending ourselves, even though we are on the other side
of the world. Unfortunately those kinds of weapons can be
transported quite easily. We are not without risk. But first
things first.
First is diplomacy, diplomacy with strength to lead us away from
war, not toward war. Unfortunately I see diplomatic effort being
used today to justify the use of force, not to avoid the use of
force as we listen to the words of the secretary of state for the
United States, where she is promising and guaranteeing that
unless there is some resolution in the very near future there
will be force.
I can understand the frustration of the United States in its
efforts to enforce UN resolution 687 to remove the weapons of
mass destruction from Iraq. I compliment our neighbours and
friends to the south who have worked so hard and so diligently to
protect the free world for the last number of decades, and how
they have tried to ensure that Iraq abides by this resolution. I
know they have reached impasse. I know they have reached failure
at this point in carrying out their mission.
We must remember that it is a United Nations resolution, not a
United States resolution, that is to be enforced.
As we are debating this issue of war and peace in the House
tonight, I ask whether this issue of war and peace is being
debated in the United Nations tonight. Unfortunately, as far as
I am aware, the answer is no. Is our foreign minister at the
United Nations trying to build support for an attack on Iraq?
Unfortunately the answer is no. Are the Americans calling on the
United Nations and the Arab countries to apply even more pressure
on Iraq so it will see the error of its ways and abide by the
resolution and back down from the eyeball to eyeball
confrontation? It appears to be, unfortunately, no.
If we are so concerned on this side of the world, where are the
fears of the neighbours of Iraq? I know they have some concerns.
Surely if the United Nations is to work properly we should be
able to expect a great deal more support for this type of
military venture we are contemplating than the coalition that has
been put together so far.
When I look at the United Nations, I think that international
institutions have a role to play in the world. If they are
ignored, they become irrelevant and the world is a more dangerous
place because of that.
If our international organizations do not work, we should fix
them. We do not ignore them. We do not bypass them. We do not
throw them away. We fix them.
This evening I think we should hear a voice of caution. When we
are threatened, we have the right to retaliate. We should use
force only when we are forced to and we should attack only when
we are attacked.
We are threatened today by the tools of mass destruction that we
know are in Iraq. Before we use force to resolve this issue,
before we attack Iraq to hopefully bring this issue to a
resolution, I think the United States, Canada, Great Britain,
Germany and every other country that believes in democracy and
decries dictatorship in any country around the world should be
standing in the United Nations enlisting the support of the
entire world before taking the fateful next step. The fateful
next step is not just an attack on Iraq but what happens after
that if Saddam Hussein survives and decides to retaliate against
us.
We must think about that because we know he is a dangerous
person.
2325
We know he is prepared to throw his troops to the wind. We know
he is prepared to sacrifice everything for his own personal
objectives and we know that if we think that we can remove some
but not all the chemical and biological weapons and he survives,
he will live to fight another day.
The world will be a safer place when Saddam Hussein is gone, but
I think it will also be a safer place when the western world with
its democratic positions can work within the international
institutions and work toward peace, not war.
As we contemplate war here this evening, I hope peace is
uppermost on the minds of all leaders of all the western world
and all the democratic countries that strive to serve the people,
not lead them into another military venture where the outcome at
this time is far from certain.
Caution. I said earlier that we threaten when we are
threatened. We can use force when we are forced to. And we can
attack when we are attacked. But we should be careful and think
it through. Diplomacy in the end, when it works, is always the
best way to do it.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my
time with my colleague, the hon. member for Cambridge.
The purpose of the debate tonight is to determine if Canada should
take part in yet another air strike against Iraq.
I remember a debate we had in this House seven years ago, at about
the same time, in January. We then supported the UN, because the world
community was behind the mission. Our actions were based on the UN
resolution to defend Kuwait against an Iraqi invasion. We saw what the
results of that mission and its aftermath were.
Today, the United States is asking Canada to join with Great
Britain and Germany in an action against Iraq. The situation is not all
that clear, because we know full well that several of the countries who
took part in the 1991 mission have not given their support this time
around. These countries would prefer a UN-led effort to a U.S.
initiative supported by a few allies.
We are told that diplomatic measures have failed. I just want to
point out what has been achieved in the past few years thanks to the
diplomatic measures the United States is decrying.
First of all, the inspectors who travelled to Iraq detected more
that 2,000 violations they were able to straighten out, twice as many as
during the Gulf War with Iraq in 1991.
One has to wonder why some people are so anxious to speed up the process
when peaceful measures could be taken to avoid killing people as we did
in 1991 and to avoid the consequences of that conflict, which have been
so harmful to the children of that part of the world.
Mr. Richardson, the US ambassador to the UN, said that he was
losing patience. What a strange statement coming from a man who is
supposed to promote peaceful, diplomatic solutions. He said he was
losing patience.
It seems to me that, when we are dealing with a conflict in which
the lives of thousands of people are at stake, we should not lose
patience. We should if possible look for diplomatic means to avoid
another massacre like the 1991 attack against Iraq, and especially
against its children.
2330
The point I want to make, not only to members of this House, but to
those who are watching, is: where is the consistency in our policy?
Canada is recognized throughout the world as a peaceful country that
tries to find solutions. Even at home, we show a great deal of
tolerance, we negotiate and we come up with solutions.
One wonders which UN resolutions are the most important ones. They
should all have the same importance; all resolutions are important.
A large number of other resolutions were also adopted by the Security
Council and the General Assembly. Take, for example, Resolution 242
dealing with the Middle East, and Resolutions 338 and 425, on Lebanon's
integrity and independence. These resolutions provide that foreign
forces in Lebanon, such as the Syrian and the Israeli forces, should
leave. These UN resolutions were adopted years ago. Yet, neither the
United Nations nor Great Britain seem in a hurry to tell the aggressors
in Lebanon that a resolution is in effect and that they must leave. So,
one wonders.
I can also think of the resolutions concerning Cyprus, southern
Lebanon, the west coast and the Gaza Strip, where facilities are not
supposed to be there. Yet, even now, these resolutions are not being
implemented. One wonders.
If all resolutions are equally important, why was the situation in the
Middle East allowed to deteriorate for more than ten years? Do you think
that countries in the Middle East are not closely watching the United
States, Great Britain and other European countries wondering if they
will deploy their huge forces to bomb them? There are other resolutions
that are completely ignored.
Canada is recognized around the world as a peaceful country, which
sends out troops to maintain peace. That is our role. We should be
involved in a diplomatic mission, not a mission to bring more
destruction to this part of the world that has known nothing else in the
past 30 years. The fact that the role played by Canada is one that is
admired by countries around the world and that solutions should always
be sought through diplomacy must be taken into consideration. Solutions
should not be decided on the basis of what suits certain countries.
For far too long in the Middle East, people have had little
confidence that Western democracies really wanted to help resolve their
problems. Is it any wonder that they question our intentions? Which the
countries around the world supplied Iraq with massive destruction
weapons in the past, when they were at war with Iran? Which countries
sold these weapons? Iraq and other countries in the Middle East
certainly could not afford to produce such weapons. Arms suppliers to
the Middle East were Western countries, including Great Britain and the
United States.
Now, in an about-face, they decide to act on a number of UN
resolutions and bring destruction again to their country. In light of
the destruction that has taken place in the past seven or eight years,
of the children that have suffered, of the embargo against Iraq, there
is a limit.
2335
It is very difficult to convince the people of the Middle East
that the West wants peace, when they see the opposite. That is a
point of view that must be re-examined. We ought to say that all
United Nations resolutions must be implemented in the Middle East,
not selected ones.
In closing, all that the United States would like from Canada
is the use of our reputation. We are respected throughout the
world, we have people's trust. Why would we want to lose that
trust? The United States knows very well that a country of 29
million does not have the arms of destruction it does.
We know very well that the U.S. is not counting on our weapons to
settle the problems in the Middle East, Iraq in particular.
I am convinced that, with time, with diplomatic means, we will
see that guys like Saddam Hussein, tyrants and monsters who have
been created by the West, will be done away with by their own
societies.
Let Canada keep its reputation as a country of peace, and let
it not be a party to missions of destruction.
[English]
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate my colleague from Gatineau for refreshing our
memories with regard to who supported Iraq in the war against
Iran.
I am pleased to rise today to debate the recent invitation to
Canada by the United States of America to participate in possible
military action in the Middle East. While I understand what our
American neighbours and allies are asking, I feel I do not have
enough information to lend my support to what is being asked of
us.
In the past I have supported requests for Canadian participation
in peacekeeping missions but this is not a peacekeeping mission.
This is a unilateral military action led by the United States
against Iraq and supported by Britain.
Unlike the gulf war seven years ago, this proposed military
operation is not in response to an Iraqi invasion of another
country. As a matter of fact when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 it was six
months later that a U.S. led a coalition against Saddam
Hussein.
Why rush into this when diplomatic solutions are still a
possibility? Seven years ago neighbouring Arab states supported
the military offensive against Iraq. Today the very same Arab
states, which are most at risk if Iraq continues to stockpile
chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, do not support
military action.
Clearly this is not an internationally sanctioned effort by the
United Nations. France, a major European country which seven years ago
took part in the U.S. coalition against Iraq, has distanced
itself from a possible military strike. Russia and China, two
large and important members of the security council, have in
recent days made strong statements against waging war against
Iraq.
Were this an internationally sanctioned effort by the United
Nations I would be more likely to support our involvement. I
share the frustrations of American and British allies who have
been unable to resolve the Iraqi situation with diplomatic
efforts. I share their concerns that a madman like Saddam
Hussein has been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. I
agree that the world must act to address the problem, but it
would be preferable if the world agreed on a common course of
action.
2340
After all, will not the dropping of American and British bombs
on chemical and biological weapons release the very same
chemicals into the air, harming or even killing innocent
civilians, especially children? Perhaps other efforts should be
undertaken before we proceed with military action.
I understand that some of the Arab states have been trained to
negotiate an agreement whereby a second UN inspection team, one
that is not as offensive to the Iraqi government, could be
appointed to inspect those sites which the American land team is
being precluded from accessing. Perhaps this is another
diplomatic measure which should be considered.
However I firmly believe that the decision to launch attacks on
Iraq should be taken by the United Nations Security Council and
not by the White House. We live in an international community
whereby the actions of one nation can impact on the lives of
many. Unfortunately there appears to be little consensus among
many of our allies.
This morning I received a copy of a letter to the prime minister
from the Islamic Humanitarian Service. Its head office is
located in my riding. In the letter it stated that Saddam
Hussein, the tyrant, will be unaffected personally if military
attacks are carried out. However innocent civilians will be the
biggest victims of such an attack. In recent days the French
foreign minister has made similar comments. The problems of
starvation and disease will be intensified while Saddam Hussein
will continue to live in comfort.
They are absolutely correct. Ordinary people have suffered
since the gulf war in 1991 but Saddam continues to live in
luxury.
The Islamic Humanitarian Service appealed to the prime minister
to oppose the whims of the United States. They have asked that
Canada maintain an independent foreign policy and stay out of the
conflict. This is the message I have been hearing all day from
constituents in my riding of Cambridge. I share their view.
Let us not rush into sending our brave men and women of the
Canadian Armed Forces into a war before all diplomatic solutions
have been exhausted. Unless there is a decision by the United
Nations Security Council to proceed with military force against
Iraq, Canada should not contribute troops or be part of it for
oil or anything else.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has an obligation to support our allies in
stopping terrorism by Saddam Hussein. Generally speaking
Canadians do not have a clear picture of the weapons of mass
destruction the United Nations has confirmed continue to exist in
Iraq despite the fact that UN inspection units have destroyed
480,000 litres of chemical weapon agents, 30 chemical warheads,
38,000 chemical and biological weapons, 690 tonnes of chemical
agents and 3,000 tonnes of chemical weapons ingredients.
Three months ago UN inspectors reported that there were still
200 suspected chemical and biological Iraqi manufacturing sites.
Of those 100 would be biological facilities, 80 chemical
facilities and 20 nuclear facilities.
UN inspectors confirmed the existence of an industrial scale VX
nerve gas production facility, four tonnes of VX nerve gas—one
drop can kill—anthrax, botulinum, aflatoxin inventories and the
Al Hake biological weapons facility.
2345
President Clinton of the United States had this to say on
November 14 about the UN inspection teams: “These quiet
inspectors have destroyed more weapons of mass destruction
potential over the last six years than were destroyed in the
entire gulf war”.
I could say more about all of this but I think what is clear is
that we have a terrorist in Saddam Hussein who is producing
weapons of mass destruction and he is prepared to use them. We
know he is prepared to use them. He used chemical agents against
Iranians and people in his own country.
While we all prefer a diplomatic solution, it is perhaps
worthwhile to go back a bit in history and consider a statement
Winston Churchill made in 1938:
If we do not stand up to the dictators now, we shall only
prepare the day when we shall have to stand up to them under far
more adverse conditions. Two years ago it was safe, three years
ago it was easy and four years ago a mere dispatch might have
rectified this position. But where shall we be a year hence?
That was in 1938. We know what happened in 1939.
In the U.K. a couple of weeks ago the House of Commons noted
that Saddam now has enough anthrax to fill two warheads every
week. He is continuing to receive missile components and may
soon be able to produce long range missiles. There is no room
for compromise here. Diplomacy will only work if Saddam
Hussein's evasions stop.
When I speak of committing the Canadian military to support our
allies to stop terrorism, I do so with the clear thought in my
mind for the military personnel and their families, people such
as those in Canadian Forces 19 Wing in Comox in my riding. The
military stands ready to carry out missions assigned by Canada.
There is a clear message in all of this for Canadians. We must
give our military the resources they require to carry out the
missions we demand of them. These missions from time to time are
going to require combat capability.
I recognize that there are some widespread concerns within our
military and we should not bury these concerns in these debates.
Skilled Canadian forces personnel in some categories such as
pilots and technicians are being lost faster than they are being
replaced due to active recruiting and substantially higher pay in
the private sector. There is concern and uncertainty about the
future strength of the military and viability of some military
occupations and trades. Continued downsizing has led to a belief
that more bad news is on the horizon.
Frequent deployments in hazardous and difficult theatres of
operation away from spouse and children have adversely affected
individuals and families. I believe if we are going to ask our
professional military to carry out combat operations, that Canada
owes it to our military to provide them with the resources they
require to do their jobs. That should be our caveat. The
military put their lives on the line and they need and deserve
our collective support.
I have to ask myself why would Saddam Hussein produce four
tonnes of VX nerve gas when one drop can kill? Why would he
produce 8,400 litres of anthrax when less than one one-millionth
of a gram can kill?
Why would Saddam Hussein, despite the fact that Iraq had signed
a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, put himself in a position to
produce a nuclear bomb by 1993 if the gulf war had not
intervened?
2350
Why would Saddam Hussein refuse to fully document missiles until
1996, five years after it was required? And why does Saddam
Hussein continue to produce contradictory and unreliable reports
on chemical and biological weapons for the UN inspection team?
We all appreciate the fact that when all else fails, our
military is asked to pick up the pieces. The current situation
in Iraq may lead to a particularly nasty circumstance which
everyone would prefer to avoid. We have a moral obligation and
it is in the national interest to stop terrorism. The military
is the instrument and agent of last resort if diplomacy fails.
There is no doubt we are facing a serious international threat.
We must focus on getting Saddam Hussein's weapons factories out
of business and allowing UN inspectors to do their job.
I have some difficulty in concluding my remarks because I am
left with an empty feeling in the pit of my stomach. If only the
world were full of reasonable people we could entertain a
reasonable solution. History tells us that the world simply is
not like that. That is why our military and our military
tradition is so important.
It is much easier to debate this issue in the House of Commons
than it is for a military family to say goodbye to a member of
the service departing for a combat mission. Let us hope it does
not come to that but let us be absolutely prepared if it does.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to contribute to this debate on the potential
role for the Canadian forces against Iraq. As Her Majesty's
Loyal Opposition critic for veterans affairs and based on my own
military experience, I am sensitive to the nature of Canada's
military involvement against Iraq.
Canada was built by immigrants from around the globe. Who better
than Canada to defend world peace. Canada was one of the first
signatories to membership in the United Nations and we are most
admired internationally for our peacekeeping role in
international conflicts. This peacekeeping role has been assumed
notwithstanding significant inadequacies in funding to our
military forces.
Our military performed admirably in the first gulf war. Our
Canadian Armed Forces are ready, willing and able to serve with
distinction and honour once again. Canada is willing to support
the United States and Britain in addressing concerns associated
with global security. Our neighbour to the south has long been a
major defender of world peace and is deserving of our respect and
support but first we wish to list the criteria for involvement.
Criteria are required to assist in deciding how Canada should
respond to requests for our participation in military operations
to establish or maintain peace in the world; that diplomatic
efforts to resolve it have failed; that there is multinational
support for military action; that there is a workable strategy
for military action to resolve the issue; that the plan includes
a clear definition of Canada's role; that the role expected of
Canada is within our military capacity; and that there is a
command and control structure satisfactory to Canada.
Canada has an obligation to support its allies in stopping
terrorism by Saddam Hussein. Our support should be military as
well as moral and political. The focus of our military actions
should be on putting Saddam Hussein's weapons factories out of
business and allowing UN inspectors to do their work. As
parliamentarians we should make the political decision to
support. We should then let the defence department make the
recommendations concerning the form and scope of our military
support.
The reason for supporting military action is our moral obligation
and our national interest in stopping terrorism and war on
innocent civilians.
2355
We must be mindful that our Canadian forces may once again be
exposed to chemical and biological contaminants during the course
of the mounting conflict and that such exposure may have far
reaching and longstanding effects on their health.
Ask Louise Richard what unknown dangers await in the battles of
the gulf region. Louise was a member of the Canadian forces in
the first gulf war and today, in her early thirties she is
debilitated by multiple health problems believed to be gulf war
syndrome. While Louise acknowledges there are necessary risks
taken by our military when serving in battle, she is disappointed
of the current government's inability to help our veterans with
the problems they are now left with.
Many of our gulf war veterans have had to rely on other
countries to aid in their treatment. This must not happen again.
If we decide to send our men and women to battle, we must also
assume the responsibilities associated with their health and
well-being when they return home. Ms. Richard who suffered
as a veteran of the gulf war still agrees that risks must be
taken to stop war's tyrants.
Iraq, defeated in the gulf war, committed crimes against its
citizens and others and had to be stopped. Part of the terms of
the ceasefire was to accept the monitoring and destruction of its
weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, Saddam has not allowed this
to happen and in fact has hidden an arsenal of warheads
and chemical weapons. In the past, Saddam has used
these chemicals of death against citizens of his country and
others. The weapons must be destroyed and the capability to
produce more be removed or there will forever be a threat to
others.
It is very clear to me that an effective inspection for chemical
and biological weapons could not be conducted without U.S.
observers. I believe that political pride should be of secondary
concern to the avoidance of the escalation of international
military conflict. The only exception to this view would be
where avoidance of international military conflict leads to the
fruitless efforts at appeasement so well demonstrated by
England's Neville Chamberlain before the commencement of World
War II. We soon learned that there is no piece of paper to wave
that will stop men like Saddam Hussein and Hitler.
Saddam lives by weight of arms and might. He will only submit
to the same.
We have only to review the recent past threat and carnage
unleashed by this committed tyrant of war seven short years ago.
It was only the combined will of two dozen nations that clipped
his military might and sent him home, but it left his chemical
and biological threat alive. These two were scheduled for
inspection and destruction until Saddam intervened once again.
This is the threat that Saddam could build on to the point of
regional threat again.
Saddam's legacy of 1991 in the mother of all wars left over
100,000 dead, oilfields set to torch, cities in ruins, his
country in tatters. Yet seven years later the world might face
more. Canada must do its part to stand and help extinguish this
threat to the nations of the world in the name of world peace.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the
hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
I am pleased to take part in tonight's debate on a possible
Canadian participation in military action against Iraq. I am convinced
that my constituents realize the importance of this debate given what is
at stake on the international scene.
Let us set this debate in its historical context. The last time
Canada had to make a decision about whether or not to take military
action in that part of the world was in 1991, in the Gulf war.
2400
[English]
In 1991 an international coalition attacked Iraq after it had
invaded the neighbouring kingdom of Kuwait. Canada's
contribution was three ships, 24 CF-18 fighter bomber planes, one
Boeing 707 tanker air craft and 1,830 Canadian Armed Forces
personnel. As do many Canadians I believe that conflict was
largely a measure to protect the world's supply of oil.
The question is why we are back in the same position as we were
in 1991. Why are we contemplating putting our armed forces into
Iraq? The answer is clear. Iraq is once again flaunting its
disregard for international standards.
Let me make some distinctions. I am as aware as anyone of the
political advantages to be gained by the United States in its
domestic matters with another armed conflict. I cannot support
those political considerations as a unique reason for risking
Canadian military personnel and using Canadian military dollars.
We cannot forget that the basis of this situation is Iraq's
refusal to co-operate with an agency of the United Nations. This
agency was established as a condition for ending the Persian gulf
war. Iraq is violating this condition and, worst of all, is
endangering lives around the world through its production of
biological weapons.
The Toronto Star made an interesting analysis in its
coverage. According to the Star Iraq has passed up
potential oil revenues totalling more than $100 billion since
mid-1991 because it has refused to co-operate with the United
Nations sponsored program to destroy its capacity for producing
weapons of mass destruction.
Why would a country pass up that kind of revenue, especially a
country where according to some organizations a child dies every
10 minutes due to malnutrition and disease? The implication is
that the refusal to allow inspection by UN personnel is worth
more than millions of dollars and worth more than those
children's lives. If that is the case, this is a spine-chilling
prospect for everyone on earth.
The United Nations commission charged with the disarmament of
Iraq found chilling evidence of Iraq's intention regarding the
production and stockpiling of biological weapons. As reported in
the Chronique ONU, the special commission found proof that
Iraq had obtained or was seeking the equipment and material
necessary to produce biological weapons. Iraq was unable to
provide a non-military justification for the equipment and
materials.
On July 1, 1995 Iraq admitted to having established an offensive
program of biological weapons, including the manufacture and
stockpiling of large quantities of toxic agents. The commission
also found that Iraq had not produced a reliable accounting of
its military biological weapons. Until this accounting was
provided, UNSCOM was unable to complete the mandate assigned by
the security council.
For several months Iraq has refused to allow United Nations
inspectors to continue their investigations. Iraq maintains that
it has destroyed all the materials necessary to produce
biological weapons by dumping them in the desert and has refused
to allow UNSCOM inspectors to inspect the sites of suspected
illegal weapons programs.
Iraq has couched this refusal in allegations that American
members of the UN team were conducting illicit spying activities
for the United States. Given the evidence of the special
committee this refusal is suspect. That is the historical
substantive context of the situation.
Let me move to the political context of Canada's potential role.
There are several issues I would like to briefly mention. It is
clear that a diplomatic resolution to this conflict is in
everyone's best interest. While it is important to show the
Iraqi government that the world supports the UN mandated
commission, the citizenship of the inspectors is not a reason to
risk Canadian personnel or use Canadian military dollars.
I suggest that we call the bluff of the Iraqi and the Americans
and send in other inspectors.
2405
I understand that the Arab league, the Soviet Union and other
influential bodies are working toward a diplomatic solution. I
firmly believe that we cannot in all good conscience move any
further toward an armed conflict without exhausting all
diplomatic avenues.
[Translation]
Second, I would like to briefly discuss the specific mandate
of the Canadian armed forces. The United States is asking merely
for logistical support from the Canadian forces—nothing more,
nothing less. Clearly the United States is trying to legitimize a
military intervention. As in 1991, the Canadian contribution will
not be innumerable weapons and war machines.
Since the white paper, the Canadian armed forces have bet on
their role as peacekeepers. If we take part in this conflict, what
kind of message will we be sending? Is this the way we want to
spend our defence budget?
I have no answer to these questions, but they are certainly
relevant in the current debate on Canada's possible participation
in the Persian Gulf.
I cannot sufficiently underscore the fact that the community
of nations Canada belongs to must wager on a negotiated solution to
the current impasse, otherwise we will be facing armed
intervention.
I would like to point out that the lack of consensus among the
Arab countries on military intervention in Iraq means that Canada
must carefully consider its conflict resolution options. Caution
is the watchword.
As I said earlier, Canadians are aware that Saddam Hussein's regime
is ill-intentioned. Some oppose the production of weapons of mass
destruction, biological and others, by Saddam Hussein. The objective is
not disputed, but the means to achieve it require some thinking.
Some of my constituents told me of their concerns about the
political situation in the Middle East. While they approve the
objective, which is to prevent the production and the stockpiling of
weapons of mass destruction, some are concerned that a military
intervention could trigger a conflict that would go beyond the Middle
East region. Others wonder about the effectiveness of the various
measures being considered by the international community to stop the
production and the stockpiling of such weapons.
I understand these concerns. Again, a military intervention may be
necessary, but the current situation requires that we conduct an in-depth
review. I hope this debate will help us make the appropriate
decisions.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on the possible
intervention of Canadian troops in the military strike against
Iraq.
Yesterday President Clinton requested Canada's support in this
initiative by way of transportation and search and rescue.
The intervention of our military forces in this situation is of
grave concern to all Canadians. I am pleased the government has
decided to have a debate on this crisis.
Throughout our history Canada's relationship with the United
States has been based on partnership and co-operation. We have
been supportive of our friend and our neighbour. In 1991, as a
part of the United Nations contingent, Canadian troops provided
logistic support in the gulf war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
We are a humanitarian nation and historically we have
participated in the solving of crises in the world through
peaceful measures.
Our humanitarianism and our strong commitment to peace have
enabled us to be a model to the world.
2410
This is the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration of
human rights, and in this year we see a leader trampling on the
human rights of his people.
The situation we are debating tonight is also about human
rights. Canadians place a high value and have respect for
individuals and their right to live in dignity. To act contrary
to this value concerns many Canadians. We understand the
frustration in dealing with Saddam Hussein and his chemical and
biological weapons, tools of mass destruction, refusing to follow
through on the UN security council resolution 687 of April 1991.
War is a fundamental threat to human life and every effort is to
be made not to allow this threat to become a reality. Whether
through the stories we hear from our parents or grandparents or
through television footage or history books, we are horrified and
are constantly reminded about the human sufferings of war.
In the riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore I have constituents from
various war torn parts of the globe who have expressed to me the
horrors of war and its effect on their lives. They have
experienced firsthand the consequences of war, the anguish, the
tremendous pain and the suffering of families.
A decision to use military means to solve the problem of Saddam
Hussein is not to be taken lightly.
On my recent visit with the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade to Bosnia I witnessed the
environmental degradation that war brought to that nation. It
will take some time before the three million or so land mines are
removed from that country.
From December 2 to December 4, 1997 Canada took leadership on
the banning of land mines. We recognize that these weapons of
war cause great physical and emotional harm to persons who have
been victimized by them. We know that hundreds of civilians were
adversely affected by the gulf war in 1991. At present many are
grossly malnourished and live in inadequate conditions as a
result of the embargo.
The consequences of war are real and they can be averted through
the actions of nations. It is the responsibility of the
international community to take leadership in finding non-violent
means to resolve crises in the world.
It is Canada's responsibility to provide moral leadership. Our
nation can play its part by being tenacious in seeking out and
exhausting all channels of foreign diplomacy under the auspices
of the United Nations. This entails looking at the wide range of
possibilities from the perspective of government and the
perspective of the non-governmental agencies.
Taking lessons from Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King
addressed conflicts in a peaceful manner.
Peace in the Middle East has been at the forefront of Canadian
foreign policy. We have been working toward peace in that region
through non-military means. We do not know of the far-reaching
consequences of a military strike against Iraq to the peace
process in that region. Nor do we know whether military action
will achieve the desired result: ridding the world of Hussein
and his weapons of mass destruction.
We know about the issue of compliance, allowing the inspectors
to get into the areas where weapons of destruction are kept.
Maybe we should be looking at an avenue for some other set of
inspectors to participate.
I ask whether we have used up all peaceful resolution to this
conflict. Have we used up all means at our command? Have we
participated in every measure that is available to make sure that
we deal with the crisis in our midst?
War is costly and we must clearly examine the price before taking
action.
2415
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am reminded of a story that a former member of this House used
to tell when we were debating the nuclear arms race in the early
1980s. The former member for Saskatoon East, Father Bob Ogle,
used to tell a story about two men in a room full of gasoline.
One guy had two matches and the other guy had three matches, and
the guy who had three matches thought he was safe.
I think there is a lesson in that for us here. Whenever we are
engaged in a conflict, or whenever we are contemplating a
conflict which has the potential that this conflict has, we need
to realize that it may well be a situation, no matter what the
outcome, in which there are no winners and losers but rather a
situation in which everybody loses when we choose war as an
alternative to diplomacy.
Having said that, I would like to pick up on what I take to be a
very earnest and constructive suggestion that was made earlier by
one of my colleagues, the member for Palliser, but which has also
been made by some Liberal backbenchers. Have we exhausted all
the diplomatic options here? It seems to me, unless I have it
wrong, that a lot of this has its origin in the objection by Iraq
to American inspectors.
Is it worth going to war over the constitution of these
inspection teams? Is it not possible for the Americans to
swallow their pride, take the chip off their shoulder, and for
the rest of us, by having the Americans do that, to call Saddam
Hussein's bluff and say if the American inspectors are the
problem, we will have a team of inspectors without Americans? We
could then see what he does and see whether there is an option
here that has not been seriously considered because there is so
much of the American ego wrapped up in whether they are allowed
to participate in these inspection teams.
It is something that needs to be considered by the government and
by other governments. I was glad to hear that coming from the
other side of the House. It seems to me that is one element of a
possible solution that needs to be explored further.
I waited until the small hours to get on the record to say a
number of things. First, I think this is a question about which
persons and members of Parliament of goodwill can disagree with
each other because in the final analysis it is a matter of
judgment. This is in some ways a hard call for anyone to make,
as to what the response of the government should be. The
position of the NDP was made quite clear by my leader earlier in
the day.
What I want to do tonight is say what I think this is not about.
It is not about one's feelings of loyalty or one's appreciation
of Canada's contribution in past conflicts, or one's feelings
about the Canadian Armed Forces and the roles it has played in
various past conflicts or in peacekeeping. I have heard people
get up and say these kinds of things, all of which I agree with.
But the implication is that because we feel good about the things
the Canadian Armed Forces has done, either in previous wars or in
peacekeeping, to be critical of this particular suggestion would
involve some kind of disloyalty to those institutions or lack of
appreciation for what has gone on before.
Quite the contrary. I am sure that veterans across Canada, like
anyone else today, are debating among themselves as to what the
right course of action is. I am sure you could find veterans who
feel the government is doing the right thing and veterans who
feel the government is doing the wrong thing.
We can probably find gulf war veterans who feel one way and other
gulf war veterans who feel the other way.
2420
So it is not a question of loyalty or appreciation of these
institutions or of past conflicts. Indeed, as has been mentioned
on a number of occasions, the American general who led the
Americans in the gulf war in 1991 has expressed serious
reservations about the advisability of proceeding to bomb Iraq
and has raised the question, as others have, whether this simply
would not be ineffective and in some ways play into Saddam
Hussein's own plan.
I say also that this is not, from an NDP point of view, a
question of taking a position rooted in an uncritical pacifism,
although there may be people within our party and other parties
who hold to a strictly pacifist position. I heard the member who
just spoke refer to Mahatma Gandhi. I am sure Mahatma Gandhi
being an absolute pacifist would have absolutely no use
whatsoever for the government's position on this or for the
American position on this.
But that is not the position from which we are arguing this day.
As members will know, we have voted in the past and spoken in the
past in favour of Canadian troops participating in various
contexts, in Haiti, Rwanda and in a variety of contexts in which
they might have had to engage in combat or in other forms of
armed activity. We have not drawn back from that possibility
when we felt that it was in the best interest of that particular
country or a peace in that particular region.
Again I come back to the point that what we are really debating
here in many respects is a question of judgment on the position
the Americans are taking at this point which the government
appears eager to approve although it is going through the motions
of a parliamentary debate. We sort of woke up this morning to
the secretary of state for the United States, Madam Albright,
basically saying that Canada was already on board. I welcome
this debate but it is hard to believe that the government really
came into this debate with an open mind, that things were not
already well in train.
It is a question of judgment and NDP judgment is that this
proposal by the United States is not warranted and that such a
proposal is even more to be criticized as so often is the case
because it comes with such self-righteousness. I want to explain
what I mean.
It seems to me these kinds of positions would be so much more
credible if they came with a little mea culpa, if they came with
a little history, if they came with a little acknowledgement of
the role that the west has played in creating the situation we
now face. I am thinking of a number of things that should be put
on the record just so that in the end somebody might still want
to argue that Canada should participate in a bombing of Iraq.
There are a number of things I would like to put on the record.
For one thing, it was the west that armed Iraq to the teeth. I
can remember earlier in my parliamentary life when it seemed that
the west was rooting for Iraq when it was at war with Iran. There
was no talk then of the evils of Saddam Hussein. There was no
talk then of the danger of arming this madman of a dictator, and
he was every bit as much a madman dictator then. It is just that
then he was doing what we wanted him to do. I say we in the west
sense. And now he is not.
2425
One cannot help but feel there is a certain amount of hypocrisy.
We need to be more consistent in our attitude toward people like
Saddam Hussein and not just play politics when it suits our
needs. We turn a blind eye to his nature and when it no longer
suits our needs we are more accurate in our description of him
and may even, when it suits us, magnify it.
I have heard a lot of talk this evening, particularly from the
Reform Party, about trusting our allies. Why should we have some
uncritical trust of our allies? That is not a Canadian
tradition. It is not the tradition under which Lester Pearson
operated when he questioned President Johnson on the Vietnam War.
Should we have trusted our allies in Cambodia, in Vietnam, in
Panama and in a variety of other situations? Just because we are
allies of the United States in NATO does not mean that we have to
be uncritical allies in everything else it does, that we have to
share its perception of every problem that arises in the world.
The one case in which we do not do that is with respect to Cuba.
Therefore there should not be this uncritical argument offered
that we need to simply trust our allies. If we are allies and
good friends then, as good friends will do, we need to be able to
ask the tough questions of our good friends, whether this is the
best course of action.
We hear a lot about the importance of the UN. I would feel a
lot better about all of this if it were actually the UN asking
Canada to participate in this. But it is not the UN, it is the
United States. The call did not come from the secretary-general
of the United Nations. The call came from President Clinton.
Here we are, seven years later after the last gulf war, in
exactly the same position. The UN is no stronger. It is
arguably weaker than it was then and at that time we were all
able to identify the problem that the UN was not strong enough to
act on its own and therefore had to almost contract out its work
in that case to this coalition, a coalition which incidentally
does not really exist any more because the agreement that existed
at that time does not exist today. I think that is important to
keep in mind when the government tries to give us the impression
that it is simply following what the UN wants it to do based on
resolutions with respect to the ceasefire that came out of the
1991 situation. The agreement that existed in 1991 clearly did
not exist in the security council or on the rest of the world
today.
Let us talk about the UN. One of the things the government
could have been doing over the last several years is working to
strengthen the UN. I am sure that is what the government has in
mind but the fact is there have been no serious proposals for UN
reform that would enable the UN to have a capacity of its own to
deal with leaders like Saddam Hussein who chose to violate its
resolutions.
Instead, seven years later we are still in the position of the
UN's being so weak as to create a context in which the United
States takes upon itself the determination of what the UN says
will be enforced.
I argue that it is not just Saddam Hussein and others who are
weakening the UN. Obviously by disobeying the UN this is to be
deplored. However, what is also to be deplored is the way in
which the United States has weakened the UN over the last 10 to
15 years by consistently refusing to meet its payments to fund
the UN.
The attack on the UN comes from many directions and for many
reasons. The last thing we need is anybody getting in the
context now of wanting Saddam Hussein to respect UN resolutions,
to get on their high horse about how much they love the UN.
2430
I can appreciate that coming from Canada because I think
Canada's record with respect to the UN is impeccable. I do not
always agree with the positions we take there, but our support of
the UN has been consistent. That cannot be said about the United
States.
Let us not tolerate from our American friends a lot of
self-righteousness about the United Nations because the United
Nations comes under more criticism in the United States of
America than almost any other place that I can think of.
Again, with respect to UN resolutions, I agree that UN
resolutions should be enforced. One cannot help but get the
impression that some resolutions are more important than others,
that some resolutions have to be enforced. Other resolutions can
just lay there collecting dust decade after decade after decade.
There is no mobilizing of the international community to enforce
these resolutions.
I say again, just a little humility when it comes to this so
that we can avoid this sort of jingoistic, uncritical attitude
which, as soon as we get into this kind of situation, all of a
sudden our side, our civilization, we can do no wrong, we have
always done things the right way, we have never done anything
wrong, we are the good guys.
I think we are the good guys in comparison to Saddam Hussein,
but we are not the good guys in the sense that we have
contributed to the situation in which we now find ourselves in a
variety of ways.
Again, with respect to the question of respecting international
judgments, UN resolutions. We have a World Court ruling on
nuclear weapons. Do I see the nations of the nuclear club of
this world saying there is an international judgment? They have
ruled nuclear weapons to be criminal, but no action on that
front.
We saw the World Court rule that the mining of the harbour in
Nicaragua was illegal. Did the United States pull up stakes and
stop what it was doing in Nicaragua?
The list goes on and on and on of occasions when the United
States has not shown respect for UN resolutions and for other
international judgments that have been made about its behaviour.
That does not make what the United States wants to do in the
case of Iraq wrong on the face of it or in principle. All I ask
is just a little more humility when it comes to these things and
some acknowledgement of the fact that when it comes to respecting
international judgments, the Americans are very much in a
position of not being in a position where they can rightfully
cast the first stone.
There are a number of other things, the position of the Kurds.
Any resolution of the Iraqi situation has to deal with the
reality of the Kurdish people but we do not see any action on
that front on the part of the Canadian government. Why? Because
of our NATO ally, Turkey, which does not want to deal with the
reality of the Kurdish people as a people.
Our hands are tied there with respect to the Kurds so that the
Kurds, whether in Iraq, Iran or in Turkey, are being persecuted.
Finally with respect to weapons of mass destruction, Iraq is not
the only country with weapons of mass destruction. There are
many countries with weapons of mass destruction.
What we need is a global arms control regime that will deal with
this because surely the solution is not bombing every country
that has weapons of mass destruction and will not get rid of
them.
That is not the solution and may not be much of a solution from
a scientific point of view because I am just a lay person when it
comes to this. If there is anthrax stored somewhere, is bombing
it a solution?
My idea of when things get bombed is that things explode and
things get scattered all over the place.
The idea of anthrax and everything else being scattered all over
the place as a result of bombing does not seem to be a very good
idea. We may very well be getting into a situation that we
cannot anticipate.
2435
That is all the more reason every possible avenue should be
explored before a military solution is sought. We in the NDP do
not feel that has been done which is why we are taking the
position we are in Parliament today.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the days leading up to this take note debate, I had the
occasion to discuss the possible participation of Canada in a
military operation against Saddam Hussein with some of my
constituents. I will share the fruit of those discussions with
my colleagues.
I can say categorically that there is unanimity and a
preference, as there seems to be in the House from the debate I
have listened to tonight, for the use of diplomatic channels to
solve this problem. We want to arrive at a solution by peaceful
means. There is a keen desire to see an intensification of our
efforts: bilateral, multilateral, at the United Nations, at the
security council or wherever. We as a country, through our
representatives the prime minister and the Minister of Foreign
Affairs who have a considerable positive reputation world-wide,
should use whatever influence we can to promote diplomacy to
arrive at a satisfactory resolution of this matter.
Some suggestions came forward in my discussions. Perhaps one of
the more imaginative recommendations I heard was that the prime
minister should offer the services of our foreign affairs
minister as an honest broker with Baghdad to a country that might
be more aligned with Iraq. This would be based on the
considerable reputations that both the prime minister and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs have achieved especially in recent
months with the signing of the anti-mine treaty. I agreed to
pass on this suggestion to the appropriate authorities.
I have heard this second suggestion from a few people, that
Canada should encourage a lifting or a reduction in the sanctions
currently imposed on Iraq. The Minister of Foreign Affairs
indicated tonight that is one possibility that has been
considered at the United Nations.
The suggestion we have heard most often this evening is that we
should consider the make-up of the inspection teams. We could
explore whether there is an opportunity to solve this lack of
respect for the United Nations resolutions and agreements to
which Iraq is a signatory by modifying the make-up of the
inspection teams to be more amenable to Iraq.
These suggestions have already been mentioned tonight but I
wanted to repeat them because these suggestions have come from my
constituents.
The second conclusion that has emerged from my discussions is
that there is certainly a preference that any Canadian
participation be made under the authority of the United Nations,
that we as a country should only participate in a military manner
in a military strike against Saddam Hussein if the United Nations
were to ask. I must admit at first blush that one might be
inclined to agree with that motion as I was and as I may still
be. But if one looks at the prevailing situation it becomes less
obvious.
2440
For instance, since 1991, and as late as November of 1997, the
UN security council adopted resolutions signifying essentially
that the non-compliance of Iraq was not acceptable and was
tantamount to a threat. For weeks now U.S. secretary of state
Albright has made numerous foreign visits to shore up support for
a military intervention led by the United States. As a matter of
fact, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party quoted the
secretary of state quite clearly as saying that time is running
out.
There has been a barrage of media coverage on this in the last
weeks. It would be very difficult not to know of the intentions
of the United States.
We have heard tonight many colleagues suggesting that we not
participate unless it is at the express request of the United
Nations. I would argue that might be a tad facile. The people
who are either on the security council or who gravitate around
the security council are intelligent. They are serious. They
are knowledgeable about world affairs and current affairs. It
would be very difficult to believe that if the people who make up
the security council did not intend to let the United States
proceed that they would not explicitly say so.
They have not said no. They have not told the United States to
stop the sabre-rattling or to stop preparing for a military
intervention. They have remained essentially silent. One could
be justified in thinking that there is, at the very least, tacit
support from the United Nations security council.
There is a saying in French which might be useful to reflect on:
“qui ne dit mot consent”. “He who says nothing can sense”.
That is the situation we are confronted with.
The United Nations is remaining silent on the fact that the
Americans are preparing for a strike quite explicitly and quite
openly, with repeated attempts by the secretary of state to shore
up support. By not denouncing that, by not saying “We are not
prepared to have the Americans lead a strike”, they are
essentially supporting it. That might be a convoluted way of
looking at things, but I believe it has some merit.
One thing which has emerged from the discussions is that if and
when the time does come for action, even military action, with
respect to the question of whether Canada should participate,
reluctantly and unfortunately, more often than not, the answer
was yes. It is not unanimous. There are people who believe that
we should not participate. However, on the whole, the comments
are “Unfortunately, yes”.
If such a time should come upon us, then we as a nation must
live up to our own obligations, our international obligations,
and perhaps even to our moral obligations.
Canada is not a neutral country. Time and again we have stood
with our allies. In times of peace we stand with them in
strategic alliances, in peacekeeping missions and so forth. In
times of war we have stood beside them in the defence of our
shared fundamental values. I believe that these values include
the ability to live one's life in relative security, certainly
secure from the deadly threat of biological or chemical weapons
in the hands of a man such as Saddam Hussein.
I began my remarks by saying that there is unanimity in
exploring every diplomatic means available to us. From the
discussion I have listened to tonight, there seems also to be
unanimity in the objective of removing from Saddam Hussein the
ability to use these biological and chemical weapons. While we
may have differing views as to how that should be achieved, we
nonetheless agree in this House on that particular objective.
What we have here are escalating alternatives from moral suasion
to sanctions to diplomacy.
What alternative then is left if these do not bring the results
we wish?
2445
There is the threat of force and finally, the use of force. We
are not there yet, but I believe I speak for the majority of my
constituents when I say that if and when the time comes that the
threat and use of force is required, Canada should stand firm
with its allies and with the United Nations.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is never easy to go to war, especially for a country
like Canada. Canada is known worldwide for being a peaceful
country, for being a country that promotes peace, a country known
worldwide for its recent land mine negotiations, a country and a
flag that are well respected around the world for its
peacekeepers.
We are being asked tonight to debate the issue as to whether
Canada should support an international effort to send a message
to Saddam Hussein. The message is that the world today does not
accept the type of behaviour Saddam Hussein has expressed through
his human rights abuses, through his deception, cheating and lies
with the UN special commission investigating his weapons of mass
destruction. It is a message that this world, the United Nations
and all countries of the world do not accept his behaviour.
Who better should the international community call on but
Canada, a country that has reacted in the past to terrorism in
world wars, in Korea, in the gulf conflict and through our
peacekeeping efforts around the world. We have reacted and we
still continue to react to that type of behaviour.
We have been asked certainly because of who we are and what we
represent, because we will add legitimacy to an international
effort. That is the case and we should be proud of that. We
should be proud of the efforts previous Canadians have made to
world peace. Other countries will certainly say that if Canada is
involved, there must be some legitimacy to those who say that
Saddam Hussein must go.
I have listened to this debate tonight and like the hon. member
from Ottawa, I spoke to many constituents over the past week to
get their ideas on this issue. What I heard in my riding of
Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant is very similar to what is heard here
in Ottawa. There are mixed messages. In fact if we look at the
media, we can understand why Canadians are concerned and confused
as to what the issues really are in this because I do not think
they have been debated properly. Canadians have not been told
the whole story as to some of the atrocities Saddam Hussein has
done.
It is argued by some that the actions we may take over the next
few weeks or months will not do anything to hurt Saddam Hussein.
It has been said that all they will do is hurt the Iraqi people.
But what is worse? The atrocities Saddam Hussein does against
his own people?
2450
That was a debate many of my constituents had. Would it be worse
to deal militarily with some of the collateral damage, men and
women who will be hurt by this, men and women who Saddam Hussein
puts in front of his military establishments as shields against
attack, or would it be better to let him go on as he did in the
1980s with the Kurdish people? It is a tough question to answer.
Last year the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
condemned the massive violations of human rights in Iraq. It
noted that it was the worst country in the world for
disappearances. Over 16,000 people have disappeared in Iraq.
Iraq does not have the same laws as Canada and it does not have
the same traditions as Canada. Iraqi people do not have the
right of association. They do not have the right to stand up and
say what they feel about their leadership. They do not have an
opposition like the one across the floor. They are not allowed
to do that and if they did, they would either go missing or they
would be killed.
It is estimated that in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein made his
campaigns against the Kurds, some 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds died.
Women and children. Whole villages, small rural villages
disappeared. Is this the type of person we want leading a
country in the world, in this global village? I think not.
Why are we at this point? Why are we at the point of military
build-up in the gulf? It is because the United Nations special
commission which was set up after the gulf war to review Saddam
Hussein, to look for weapons of mass destruction and to oversee
their dismantlement, has been lied to and has been cheated and
has not been able to do its job. We are at a standoff. Do we do
what most of us would want to do and negotiate a settlement? But
if we do, how do we trust him?
We negotiated a settlement on the gulf war. The United Nations
brokered a settlement. It was given assurances and commitments
by Saddam Hussein that he would tell it about his weapons. He
said he never got involved in biological warfare or chemical
warfare. We found out differently. How do we trust a negotiated
settlement with this man?
The UN special commission succeeded in destroying 38,000
chemical weapons, 480,000 litres of live chemical weapon agents,
48 operational missiles, 6 missile launchers and 30 special
missile warheads which could have been used for biological
weapons. That is scary.
The threat that this man has on the world scares me. I am sure
it scares a number of Canadians. That is why we need to take
action. We need to send a message to the world that it is
unacceptable behaviour. And who better to do it and who better
to get involved than Canada.
2455
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Calgary
Southeast.
This is a very difficult debate. Any time we engage in a
decision that is going to cost people's lives, it is something
none of us in this House take lightly.
Clearly the situation we have today is very unlike what occurred
in 1991 in gulf war one, if we want to call it that. The
parameters are not as clear and the situation is more nebulous.
The threat, while there, is not as clear. Nonetheless we have
some decisions to make. Should we stay or should we go? Should
we bomb or should we not? Should we ask the United Nations to
take a different course, or should we support our allies, the
United States?
The United States would not have asked us for support publicly
if it did not believe it was going to receive it. Clearly the
U.S. believes it is going to receive some support in some way and
that in all likelihood would be modest and token support to show
moral support for the U.S.
However we have some decisions to make so let us deal with the
issues as they come up. It is certain that Saddam Hussein has
chemical and biological weapons. Of that there is no doubt. The
issue is how to get rid of them.
The objective of this whole exercise must be to allow UN
inspectors to get into Iraq unfettered. The question is how to
do that.
The United States wants to bomb if diplomacy fails. Let us look
at some considerations.
If a VX or sarin gas plant were bombed, sarin and VX nerve gas
would be released into the air and would spread around causing
thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people to die. The
situation could be catastrophic. The worst case scenario would be
very bad. It would also polarize individuals within the country
and would probably drive support to Saddam Hussein. Support
within his own country would harden, just like it did after 1991.
Also, it would end the visits of UNSCOM in Iraq. We can be
certain of that. UNSCOM has done an outstanding job of
establishing the presence of nuclear weapons grade material and
also the presence of chemical and biological weapons. This has
enabled us to get rid of them. Those inspections would end in the
event of bombing.
We have to consider that the action of bombing must outweigh the
downside: polarizing support within Iraq; polarizing the people
against the international community; potentially causing a huge
catastrophe in the release of sarin and VX nerve gases and
biological and chemical weapons; and also a hardening of
positions in the United Nations and the end of weapons
inspections in Iraq.
If we bomb, the bombing must take place on military targets
alone. We must avoid any kind of collateral damage of the
civilian population.
If diplomacy is to occur, there is something important we are
missing here. Diplomacy should involve the Arab nations. In
fact the secretary general of the Arab league has said very
clearly he would support diplomatic initiatives and in fact that
is the preferable way. The Arab league is against the bombing
scenario. Let us make it put its money where its mouth is and ask
the Arab league to put together a group of diplomats intent on
going into Baghdad to try to organize a diplomatic solution.
Some give and take could occur. One of the complaints Saddam
Hussein had was that the weapons inspectors were all people from
the U.S. and U.K. One compromise that could easily be made would
be to involve other weapons inspectors along with the U.S. and
U.K. individuals, such as members from Arab nations. This would
add an element of impartiality and would eliminate that argument.
We should also not end any sanctions and support a trade of oil
for food so that the Iraqi people will have some kind of relief
for the terrible situation they have endured for so long. Oil
for food and medicine would also demonstrate clearly to the Iraqi
people that the international community is very much sympathetic
to them but is against the brutal regime that brutalizes them
more than anything else.
I need not remind the House that the greatest number of
casualties suffered under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein is
among the Iraqi people.
2500
The U.S. has asked us for support which will likely be
peripheral support. We can provide that support if diplomatic
initiatives have truly been exhausted.
There are some inconsistencies in our foreign policy. We are
all desirous of supporting UN resolution 687. At the same time
we ignore the UN resolutions in the Middle East. We ignore the
illegal grouping of Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon who should
have been removed a long time ago. We also ignore UN resolutions
relating to the areas shared by the Palestinian and Israeli
people. We ignore UN resolutions on the West Bank, the Gaza
strip and Jerusalem.
If we are to be consistent and fair not only to ourselves but to
the world, and in particular to the Arab community, we must
support all UN resolutions fairly. We cannot say on one hand
that we are supporting resolution 687 while on the other hand
choosing to ignore another UN resolution dealing with the Middle
East. If we want to be seen as a fair player we have to support
all UN resolutions equally and fairly. In doing so we will be
seen as being a far more equitable and fair player in the Middle
East.
One of the problems with the Middle East is that although most
of the nations there despise or at least fear Saddam Hussein,
they mistrust, and rightfully so, the west because of the failure
of western foreign policy to come to the aid of some egregious
situations that are taking place right now in the Middle East.
Ultimately the final solution in dealing with Saddam Hussein has
to come from within. The political solution is the solution that
will end the regime of Saddam Hussein. It has to come from the
remnants of opposition parties that still exist within Iraq.
The bombing, if it is to occur, must be understood by the Iraqi
people to be in support of them and against the regime of Saddam
Hussein. It is also important for the Arab community to get on
side with whatever we do. We must ensure that diplomatic
initiatives are exhausted and that the Arab community is
intimately involved in those decisions. If it is not, any
decisions that are made will be looked upon again as western
influence in Middle East problems and the lack of sensitivity
implicit in that.
It is also important for us to understand our role as Canadians.
We have two roles. We must support our neighbours, the United
States. We receive much from them and are grateful as
co-operative partners in military affairs. However, as has been
said many times before, a military solution must come after a
diplomatic solution.
We can take a leadership role in trying to put forth through the
United Nations a very clear and specific request to the Arab
league to involve them as mediators in the quandary we are faced
with right now to ensure that weapons inspectors can go into
Iraq. This might be accomplished by explaining to them very
clearly that the effects of a chemical, nuclear or biological
attack by Iraq on Israel would involve casualties on Syria,
Lebanon, the Palestinian people and the Jordanians.
I realize that our time is coming to an end, but I implore our
country, the foreign minister and the prime minister to push the
Americans to aggressively achieve a diplomatic solution for us to
take our leadership role to the UN and to the Arab league, to
pursue a diplomatic issue and to try some different innovative
ways to involve the Arab community in achieving a diplomatic
solution before a military solution becomes our only option.
2505
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise to take part in this take note debate
particularly because I actually have a private member's motion
before the House dealing with Iraq. Motion No. 279 proposes:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should endorse
the formation of an international criminal tribunal for the
purpose of prosecuting Saddam Hussein and all other Iraqi
officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity,
including the unlawful use of force, crimes committed in
contravention of the Geneva Convention and the crime of genocide.
I would like first to address the rationale behind my motion.
Many people observing the debate tonight will have heard many
members discussing geopolitical considerations, the question of
war and peace, the question of the United States foreign policy
and its relationship to the United Nations. However I am afraid
that perhaps not enough people realize the extent to which we are
dealing with an utterly morally bankrupt and tyrannical regime
which is arguably the most vicious and tyrannical regime on the
face of the world today.
World leaders in the past have drawn parallels between Saddam
Hussein and other great figures of political and moral evil of
the century like Adolf Hitler. I submit that such comparisons
are not entirely outlandish.
I mention these things because it is important to understand
with whom it is we are dealing. Saddam Hussein's regime, as was
mentioned, has been responsible for the unlawful deaths,
execution and torture of countless hundreds of thousands of his
own civilians and hundreds of thousands of citizens of other
nations such as Iran and Kuwait and the disputed
territories of Kurdistan.
The United Nations has repeatedly reprimanded the Government of Iraq for its
atrocious human rights record, a record which among other things
has former detainees testifying as to torture techniques that
include “branding, electric shocks administered to the genitals
and other areas, beating, burning with hot irons, suspension from
rotating ceiling fans, dripping acid on the skin, rape, breaking
of limbs, denial of food and water, and threats to rape or
otherwise harm relatives.
The security forces in Iraq have killed many of their torture
victims and mutilated their bodies before returning them to their
families.” Also as a gesture they require the victims' families
to pay for the cost of their execution. That is the kind of
regime we are dealing with. It is a regime which simply cannot
be reasoned with.
I have heard many members of this place say that we must fully
exhaust all avenues of diplomacy. No rational person could
possibly disagree with that proposition. The problem is that for
seven years now the civilized world has attempted to implement
and enforce United Nation Security Council Resolution 687 which
requires the destruction of all weapons of mass destruction and
facilities for the production of such weapons in Iraq.
For seven years the regime of Saddam Hussein has belligerently
and deliberately lied, ducked, dodged, obfuscated and refused to
co-operate with the order of international civilization in the
unanimously passed resolution of the security council.
The United Nations, the United States, the European powers, the
Arab neighbours of Iraq, and Canada as a middle power have all
played a long and exhaustive role in attempting to find a
diplomatic and peaceful resolution to what could be a devastating
and violent conflict.
2510
The diplomatic solution has not worked. That is why we are now
at this juncture today. I emphasize this because many of those
who have expressed enormous reticence at even Canada's symbolic
involvement in military action, principally on the part of the
United States, continue to emphasize the need for a diplomatic
solution with their heads in the sand. They seem not to
recognize that those diplomatic solutions have been tried and
tried, have been exhausted and have proven not to work.
I could quote the head of the UNSCOM team of weapons
investigators that has been operating in Iraq. He recently
reported to the United Nations Security Council on discussions he
had with Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariz Aziz.
He says that these talks were characterized from the beginning
“by extended statements by the Iraqi side to which no even
remotely equal reply was invited, accepted or apparently wanted.
Moments of abuse and denigration of the UNSCOM and
its professional officers, an attempt literally to apportion
all blame to UNSCOM past and present for the disarmament task had
not been completed and sanctions on Iraq had remained in force,
and
the deputy prime minister spoke at length about how Iraq had
divested itself long ago of all its weapons of mass destruction,
their components and their means to produce them,” and on and on and
on and.
This is the kind of diplomacy the United Nations faces when
dealing with Iraq. Diplomacy cannot be exercised with a stone
wall. Diplomacy cannot be exercised with a tyrant who refuses to
negotiate. Diplomacy cannot be exercised with a tyrant who
places no value on the lives of his own people.
There is one thing and one thing alone that Saddam Hussein
understands: the force he has used so ruthlessly on his own
people.
Let us get one thing perfectly clear. This is not some
theoretical threat we are talking about. This is not some
exercise in American sabre rattling that some of our more
colourful members would suggest.
We are talking about a tyrannical lunatic who has control over
weapons that could potentially kill millions of innocent
civilians in terrorist attacks. Other members have discussed the
verified evidence of chemical and biological weapons still in the
possession of Iraq.
According to UNSCOM'S February 4 report there are “38,000 chemical
weapons, 480,000 litres of live CWHs, 6 scud mobile missile
launchers, 19 missiles, 30 special chemical
missile warheads, hundreds of other chemical and conventional
warheads, hundreds of chemical weapon production items, 690
tonnes of chemical weapon agents, 3,000 tonnes of chemical weapon
precursors and ingredients and a 1,000 kilometre range super
gun.”
They have all confirmed the existence of industrial scale VX
nerve gas production facilities and production of four tonnes of
VX, one drop of which can kill. They have discovered 19,000
litres of botulinum, 8,400 litres of anthrax and 2,000 litres of
aflatoxin. I do not even know what all these things are but I am
reliably informed that each one of them is enormously deadly.
I want to close with this sentiment. If we do not join our
allies in forceful action to intervene in this tyrant's refusal
to obey the international order, are we prepared as peace loving
Canadians to wake up some day in the not too distant future to
hear broadcasts on our television news that Tel Aviv, Jerusalem,
Tehran or Kuwait City have been decimated with deadly biological
weapons launched from Iraq? Are we prepared for that fate?
I submit we are not, and that is why I submit that the most
peaceful thing we can do is to support our allies in intervening
aggressively once it is determined that all diplomatic means to
this problem have been exhausted.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to make some remarks tonight on the issue
which will hopefully reflect the views of Canadians on just what
we should be doing now in connection with the Iraq enforcement
action.
2515
The backdrop is the Iraq war following Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait, the ceasefire which followed and required the destruction
of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. UN inspectors have
taken possession of and destroyed a number of such weapons,
including 480,000 litres of chemical material that has been
referred to along with other weapons in the debate tonight.
I am splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.
The job following the Iraq war is not complete. Iraq has bucked,
obstructed and prevented completion of that task. We now live in
a world where we cannot tolerate the existence of such weapons in
the hands of those who would threaten the world order. Perhaps I
do not need to point out that Iraq has not just developed such
weapons but it has used them domestically and threatened to use
them internationally.
In the face of these Iraqi threats and the complete absence of
trust or confidence in its leadership, the world community is
determined to eradicate these weapons. The question is how and
what should Canada's role be. We are not in a position to do
nothing. We are not only a UN member, we are also members of
NATO and of the Commonwealth. We are already part of these
alliances. When our UN, our NATO and our Commonwealth partners
reach a consensus on an essential common goal, we must stand with
them. It is now a given that international enforcement and
peacekeeping are a part of our new world order. They are
essential to global stability.
Here is my short list of what Canada should be doing which I
present on behalf of my constituents. Our government must be in
a position to accept or verify the latest intelligence data
gathered by the United Nations and the alliance partners. Canada
and its alliance partners have invested large amounts in assets
that gather intelligence. While most of this data will not be
released so as to protect procedures and sources, they will be
available to our government members who must make the decisions,
and they must assure Canadians that they have done this.
We must reassure ourselves that all United Nations and
diplomatic initiatives have come to an end. There may well be
some additional poker playing by the Iraqi leadership in the few
weeks or days to come. I would personally rather win in a poker
game than in a military engagement. Only then should we make a
determination to support the alliance in a military engagement.
This would be consistent with our Canadian history, over 100
years of Canadian history of participating in alliances of this
nature.
As a partner in any such alliance, we must ensure the alliance
will operate to secure the United Nations objectives and will not
act contrary to the UN rules. We should provide such support to
the alliance as is consistent with our ability and what its needs
are.
We should continue to assert Canadian ways within the alliance.
Only if we are present will we have the ability to assert these
Canadian ways. Remember that Canada has developed over a long
period of time its own ways of acting internationally. Sometimes
we are rather good at it. We must not miss opportunities to
influence the way in which the alliance carries out its task in
this instance.
This enforcement action must be limited and must be contained
almost at all costs. I realize that once one enters into a
military engagement one runs the risk of losing control of it. I
cannot accept that we would enter into this where there was any
material risk of an expansion of the engagement beyond what the
partners had agreed to.
2520
I have three more points to make. First, this enforcement
action should not be seen as a one-off exercise. There is a
message here for all countries that would flaunt the evolving
modern rules of international order. All this is important to
our collective global future.
Second, the targets of any enforcement action must be military.
In an action like this we anticipate that there may be some
military engagement on the ground and special operations to
secure the goals of the action. However, it is my view that
Canadians will not accept but will in fact reject any alliance
operation which puts civilians at risk.
Third, it will be very difficult to replace the leadership in
Iraq without leaving a power vacuum. In my view, a power vacuum
in that region is almost as dangerous to the world order as the
current circumstance.
Where would we be if we all did nothing? Would we simply wait
meekly for the sucker punch that would inevitably come, with the
attendant violence and instability? I do not think we want to
wait meekly. I think we want to act internationally.
I do not believe that we can do nothing. We must act
responsibly as Canadians in the way we have done in the past. We
are now called to act to protect the international order with our
partners. On the terms which I have outlined tonight, I believe
that Canadians will be prepared to do that. I do not believe
they have much choice.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to participate in this take note debate. Clearly over
the last seven hours, members of Parliament have made it very
clear this is a very important issue for Canada. It is not to be
taken lightly. We are talking about a threat to world peace.
Members have been very clear. I have written many notes, which
I have changed often over the last number of hours. I want to
abandon a few of the points I was going to make, only because I
believe they have already been well made by members, including
the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.
The president of the United States has asked Canada to provide
non-combat support. It is important to understand that the
request is for non-combat support.
The Prime Minister undertook to consult with the House prior to
making his decision with his cabinet. I want to start by
thanking the Prime Minister for providing the opportunity to all
members of Parliament to voice the views of their constituents
and their own views on behalf of their constituents.
Today I received a fax from a constituent, Ms. Janis Alton, who
has written me often on matters of international peace and
security and human rights issues. Ms. Alton has touched on a few
points which I think Canadians would like expressed in the House.
There are just as many questions that have to be answered. The
importance of the debate is not necessarily for us to answer
those questions but rather to ensure those questions are posed
and fully explored as part of the decision making process.
Ms. Alton is utterly opposed to any military action. She stated
in her fax: “While Iraq's leadership continues to resist full
compliance with a security council order for inspection and
destruction of its weapon sites, at the same time, its civil
society has no voice in the matter”.
She goes on to talk about human rights issues and the plight of
the civilians. That is certainly an important aspect. Canadians
want that assurance. That is part of the consideration. I
believe that all members of Parliament hope that every possible
protection and consideration will be given to innocent victims to
ensure that the kinds of things that people can only imagine do
not occur.
2525
Ms. Alton concludes that military action should only take place
with the sanction of the security council. It has been pointed
out a number of times today that only two of the five security
council members have given their support at this point.
The question is whether the reasons for the non-support at this
point of the other members, France, Germany and Russia, are
substantive which should be exhausted prior to taking any further
actions. Ms. Alton has suggested seeking the resolution of the
lack of unanimity of the security council is an important
question for us to raise.
A number of constituents have raised with me the issue of the
United States. It is the indictment that this is a unilateral
action of the United States and Canada cannot be pushed
around and manipulated.
This kind of attitude probably has no place in terms of the
decision making process. We are talking about the fundamental
issues of peace and security of the world, very serious issue,
and to suggest that somehow this is a unilateral action is
somewhat shortsighted.
There is no question that Saddam Hussein has not complied with
resolution 687 of April 1991 nor with any subsequent resolutions.
We cannot forget, however, that historically in matters of peace
and security Canada has not been a bystander. Thousands and
thousands of Canadians lost their lives for peace in the world.
Canada has been a player, has been supportive.
The security council itself, however, has made it known very
clearly that in its view Saddam Hussein represents a threat to
the neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Syria, Israel, Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, Iran. When we mention these countries altogether,
I think we cannot help but recall how many conflicts have gone on
there for how many years and how volatile the situation is. This
is a very serious situation.
There is the question of guarantees. Clearly there can be no
guarantee that any military strike is going to achieve the
desired results. But the question then becomes if every
diplomatic option has been exhausted fully to the satisfaction of
all and no further action is taken, then what?
It is a very good question. What happens? I believe it is the
view of the UN that failure to comply with the UN resolution is
not a passive position. It is in fact taken to be a threat, a
real threat to world peace.
In the ceasefire agreement, Saddam Hussein in writing accepted
that he would, under international supervision, destroy, remove
or render harmless the weapons of mass destruction and that
economic sanctions would be in place until compliance.
This compliance, as many members have outlined, is under the
auspices of UNSCOM, the UN special commission which was
established by UN security council resolution 687. Many members
have outlined its responsibilities. It has not been allowed to
do its job. This is important from the standpoint that this
agency represents the interests of all the members of the UN.
2530
It represents the monitoring agency and the agency which is
going to deal with things. One of the previous speakers went
through a very substantial list of the destruction of chemical
weapons, missiles and missile launchers and other warheads that
UNSCOM has succeeded in destroying to date. Yet there are still
many more there. This is a serious threat.
Before I came to the House today I looked on the web. I wanted
to see what CNN was reporting. One of the stories says that
defence officials said on Monday that the U.S. is sending as many
as 3,000 ground troops to Kuwait as tensions heightened over the
weapons inspection impasse. Secretary of state Madeleine
Albright said the United States has the authority,
responsibility, means and will to launch substantial military
action against Iraq if there was no diplomatic solution. These
are very powerful words and no one can question the commitment or
the resolve in regard to dealing with Saddam Hussein.
In closing, I want to make my input to the Prime Minister as
follows, and I think it is supported by the House, that all
diplomatic options be exhausted fully. We need those assurances.
Second, that every effort be made to secure the support of the UN
security council. This is a very important element. Third, we
have to have the kind of assurances that there would be the
greatest possible protection for civilians. Finally, that we
take every precaution to ensure the protection of our troops if
they participate.
It is a very serious issue and I believe that the House has
spoken very clearly that we have no choice if there is no
diplomatic solution.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is my
first term in Parliament. I did not anticipate debating the
possibility of Canada participating in a war.
Through the campaign I was asked many questions, but no one
asked this question, no one asked about war. What prepares one
for a debate such as this and the possible outcome of it? I
believe it should be our humanity and our desire for peace that
guides us.
Canada should be on the side of those who seek to resolve this
crisis through negotiations and diplomacy. There is nothing to
be gained in the long run through a strategy of provocation and
threats. I join a Yukon resident, Rod Snow, who I just spoke to,
who is opposed to the prospect of force. It is an admission of
failure, the absolute failure of the world's leaders. It is not
an admission I would like to make.
We must approach this extremely critically based on knowledge
and based on what we know. It is hard to make decisions on what
we do not know. As a parliamentarian I have not been briefed by
our government. We have not had any UN representative to brief
us. I do not know all the weapons information that there is. Are
they there in Iraq? The UN inspectors have not been able to go
in and confirm what is there.
What do we know about our Canadian army? Are they prepared? We
just heard, as they have just come through the ice storm and
assisting people through floods, that their budget is gone, they
are understaffed, they face cutbacks, they are underfunded. We
can barely give them helmets, a decent wage or even basic
housing. There is very little we give them and in return what we
are asking our soldiers to give us is possibly their lives.
We do not know what the financial cost of this endeavour will be
to Canadians. Is it open-ended? Will we be able to get out?
More importantly, can we afford the human cost?
What do we know about Iraq? We know Saddam Hussein is a
dictator. We know that he is a gross human rights abuser and
that he kills his own citizens. That is no reason for us to
believe that it would be better for us kill his citizens than for
him to do it himself. That is no reason for us to go in and join
a military strike of bombing.
2535
We know that the widows and children of the gulf war are
starving and dying daily. There is little if any medicine. The
cities are crumbling and the young and the elderly are living
under sanctions imposed in part by us. They may have biological
and chemical weapons of mass destruction, but so do other
countries.
I would like to know who is arming this dictator. Who is
selling the arms? Once again, the UN inspectors have not been
able to finish their work.
Our ultimate objective, of course, is peace. What we need to do
to reach this is to make sure that the UN inspectors can get into
Iraq. If we join this strike as planned by the U.S., not by the
UN, if we strike first there is no peace.
What would cause the greatest harm is bombing. We know that the
bombs are not precise. We know who will be beneath those bombs:
families, mothers, fathers, children, people who have already
suffered, who are already starving and dying and who are already
living under a brutal dictator.
I have heard over the last few days that what we have here are
principles. Our principles are at stake. I believe, more
importantly, that lives are at stake. Before we jeopardize human
lives by the use of deadly weapons and approve death sentences
for many civilians and before we expose our Canadian soldiers to
war who may be ill prepared for it, we must make every effort to
get UN inspectors into Iraq.
There will be no winners in this war. However, there is time
and there are options. We do not have to go to war. We do not
have to be pushed into this, especially in such a short time
period, January 29 to this date. The pressure is building that
we have to join, but we do not have to join.
What we need to do is make sure there is an international team
of UN inspectors that excludes the U.S., Britain and possibly
even Canada, but inspectors who would be allowed into Iraq to do
their work. We could ease the inhumane sanctions that are
causing more suffering for civilians and use that as leverage for
the UN inspectors to enter Iraq.
I have heard that Canada has an obligation to join its allies
and go to war. However, we are not obligated to start a war or
to be a part of a war where we know the majority of suffering
will fall on civilians. The language has changed so much that
the death of civilians is called collateral damage. It is not
seen for what it is, torture and death.
What we face is the possibility of damage by Saddam Hussein and
the possibility of a threat. Once again, other countries have
weapons of mass destruction. This damage and threat can be
warded off with diplomacy. As leaders of the country and as
members of Parliament, it is incumbent on us to make sure that we
use that diplomacy.
We face the certainty of harm in comparison to the possibility
of the threat from the country of Iraq. We face the certainty of
harm and destruction if we join the U.S. in bombing Iraqi
citizens because those are the people who will suffer. Saddam
Hussein has shown himself to be very capable of surviving
anything. However, it is those who are most vulnerable who will
not survive and will suffer further and further.
We also face the unknown that will follow if we do start
bombing. There will be a conflagration in that area. It might
ignite. It may spread. It may drag on for years.
Most of all, we must seek a humane solution. A humane solution
is one where we do the least harm and the most good.
In ending, I would like to thank the Speaker, the pages and the
clerk for seeing this debate through to the end and also all my
parliamentary colleagues who stayed well into the night.
Hopefully this is a debate that we will never have to have again
and that it will only happen once in our lifetime.
2540
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made earlier this day, this House
stands adjourned until 10 a.m. later today, pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.40 a.m.)