Debates of April 22nd, 1999

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week is organ donor week and today is national organ and tissue discussion day. On the occasion of both I am pleased to have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health entitled “Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation: A Canadian Approach”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee proceeded to consider the state of organ and tissue donation and transplantation in Canada. The report was developed following intensive consultation and provides a comprehensive and national approach sought by numerous groups and individuals already working in the field.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report within 150 days.

I thank all of my colleagues on the standing committee, from both sides of the House, for the dedication and energy which they have put into this very important and comprehensive study.

Canada Food Safety And Inspection Act

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-80, an act to revise and consolidate certain acts respecting food, agricultural commodities, aquatic commodities and agricultural inputs, to amend the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, and to repeal and amend other acts in consequence.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Income Tax Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-496, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (medical expenses).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the seconder of this bill, the hon. member from Burnaby—Douglas. In summary, we hope that this private member's bill will assist thousands upon thousands of Canadians who obtain their medical prescriptions from a licensed physician.

The purpose of this enactment is to expand the list of allowable medical expense deductions in the Income Tax Act to include expenses incurred due to a herbal remedy prescribed as a substitute for a prescription drug that would qualify as a medical expense under the act, but which a person cannot use because he or she has severe allergies or environmental sensitivities to that drug.

I wish to thank the environmental health clinic of Nova Scotia, which is in my riding, in Fall River, for helping us to draft the legislation and all those people in Canada who have supported the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada Elections Act

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-497, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (reimbursement of election expenses).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this, my first, private member's bill in the House. It amends the Elections Act by allowing a registered party reimbursement of part of its election expenses, when at least 30% of the total number of elected candidates endorsed by it are women.

I believe that concrete mechanisms must be put in place immediately, which is why I am proud to introduce this bill. As I have already said, this bill constitutes a major step in relation to the presence of women in politics. I would remind my colleagues that 52% of the population are women. Now is the time to act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Awarding Of The Organ Donation Medal Act

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-498, an act respecting the establishment and award of an Organ Donation Medal to commemorate a person for the posthumous donation of an organ.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this very special day when the health committee will be introducing its report.

I want to thank my hon. colleague from Dewdney—Alouette for seconding this bill.

I rise to introduce my private member's bill, which I call the organ donation medal act. If passed, the bill will serve to formally recognize posthumously those who have given of themselves through organ donation so that someone else may live a richer, fuller life. This medal would be awarded to a family member to recognize the gift of life.

Today over 3,000 Canadians are waiting for life-giving organ transplants and Canada has one of the lowest donation rates in the world. We know that needs to be changed. As a parliament and as a society we can take steps to change this.

This bill is without precedence and I hope that through this small step we can ensure that more of those 3,000 people will be able to receive the organ donation which they so desperately need. This bill would help those people.

I hope that all members on all sides of the House will give this bill the non-partisan support it deserves.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees Of The House

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, presented on Thursday, December 10, 1998, be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I want to admonish the House that members who rise to speak under motions will be asked to be strictly relevant to the motion on which they rise.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I should inform the House that I will be dividing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.

I have moved concurrence this morning in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The report was presented to the House on December 10, 1998, which was International Human Rights Day.

The report is profoundly important. It concerns nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and the role of NATO. The report raised a number of profoundly important questions and made a series of serious recommendations.

Moving concurrence in that report today is timely. We are literally on the eve of the 50th anniversary of NATO's founding. There will be a major NATO summit meeting in Washington, D.C. tomorrow.

My New Democratic Party colleagues and I call on the government to use this as an opportunity to put forward visionary and forward thinking proposals. It should show leadership particularly on two fundamental issues, on the issue of the review of NATO's strategic concept and on the response of NATO to the ongoing humanitarian and military tragedy in Kosovo and Serbia.

I should say parenthetically that clearly in the context of a debate around NATO there are obviously broader questions as well. But bearing in mind the admonition of the Chair not to venture onto that turf I will not do that.

My colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I historically have taken the position and continue to take the position that given the dissolution of the Warsaw pact and the growing irrelevance of NATO, Canada could play a far more constructive role working within the framework of the United Nations and other regional security bodies. Canada should withdraw from NATO.

We note as well with sadness the fact that a number of profoundly important issues around NATO, including the fundamental issue of the expansion of NATO, were never addressed in any meaningful way by this parliament. However, that is a debate for another occasion.

With respect to the issue of the recommendations of the parliamentary committee on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, as my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre stated, Canada has failed to show any serious leadership in this area.

There is no question we welcome the call of Canada for a review at the NATO summit tomorrow of NATO's strategic concept. But on the fundamental key issue that is involved in that strategic concept, NATO's absurd and destructive clinging to a policy of first use of nuclear weapons, what does the Government of Canada have to say? To this day we do not know what the government's position is.

In a background document on the NATO summit prepared and circulated to members of the House, all the government says is that Canada believes that nuclear weapons are far less important to NATO's strategy than in earlier years. It is time we had far more leadership than that and that Canada took to the table a clear policy of no first use of nuclear weapons.

The committee urged the government to move ahead to support the call for conclusion of a nuclear weapons disarmament convention. There again the government has failed to respond positively. The committee made recommendations as well around MOX fuel regarding the total unfeasibility of that as a concept. Here the government has shown contempt for parliament in moving ahead with that.

My colleagues and I are urging the government to show leadership with respect to the issue of the nuclear weapons test range at Nanoose Bay. Just this week four very distinguished Canadians, Dr. David Suzuki, Dr. Michael Wallace, Elizabeth May and David Cadman, urged the Canadian government to seek an advisory opinion from a Canadian court to determine whether the activities at Nanoose Bay are in fact in defiance of international law, and in particular a decision of the International Court of Justice. I urge the government to respond positively to that request.

With respect to the issue of Canada's strategy in Kosovo and Serbia, this weekend at the NATO summit Canada does have an opportunity, and my colleagues and I believe a responsibility, to show leadership. Instead, as the leader of the New Democratic Party pointed out yesterday, Canada is blindly following a consensus instead of showing any leadership whatsoever.

Canadians are asking a growing number of questions about NATO's whole approach to this humanitarian and military disaster. Just what are NATO's objectives in these air strikes?

Initially we were told that it was military targets. We know now that the bombing has expanded far beyond that. We know now that NATO is bombing party headquarters in the heart of Belgrade, Milosevic's home, and a PVC and VCM plant at Pancevo in Yugoslavia which proposes a profound threat to the environment. We know they have expanded far beyond military targets and are bombing many non-military targets. There have been tragic losses of civilian life in convoys in Kosovo, trains in Serbia and elsewhere.

What are the guidelines? What is Canada saying? Has Canada voiced its concern about this very dangerous expansion beyond military targets? We know that the United States, the so-called supreme command, is making the decisions.

Canadians are asking if Canada is speaking out forcefully within NATO. Will we speak out this weekend about the uses of depleted uranium in that conflict? We know that the A-10 helicopters are going to be there and they use depleted uranium. This poses a very grave long term environmental and humanitarian disaster as we have seen in Iraq and elsewhere. What does Canada have to say about that? Absolutely nothing.

What about the refugees within Kosovo? There are some 400,000 desperate people with no food, no water and no shelter. NATO's only strategy appears to be to keep bombing and it could last for months. In the meantime what does Canada have to say? What is Canada's position with respect to this? Are we prepared to talk about getting desperately needed food in? The Greeks have made a proposal which would lead to getting some food on the ground. Where is Canada's leadership? There is silence here as well.

Finally and most important, what concrete diplomatic initiatives is Canada putting forward? At the foreign affairs committee this week we heard from Jim Wright, a director general and spokesperson for the government in this area, that the key to a negotiated settlement is getting Russia on board. Indeed the Russian special envoy, Viktor Chernomyrdin, is in Belgrade now. We also know that the key issue for Russia is the composition of the international peacekeeping force. Jim Wright said that that was the only outstanding issue.

Why is it that our government refuses to take to the NATO summit a clear proposal that that international peacekeeping force cannot be a NATO led peacekeeping force. It must be a UN led peacekeeping force. Why is Canada not showing leadership on this front which could mean that we could return to the table? Why is Canada not urging to move forward with the uniting for peace resolution at the United Nations similar to that which Lester Pearson moved forward?

Let me say that Canada has failed abjectly to show leadership here. The United Nations Association in Canada has urged a number of proposals. It has urged NATO to consider a temporary halt in the bombing, urgent consultation with like-minded states, moving ahead within the United Nations.

Canada cannot simply blindly continue to follow. We have an opportunity tomorrow at the NATO summit to show leadership. My colleagues are calling on the government to end its following, to stand up and show leadership on behalf of Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we go to questions and comments the title of the report to which the concurrence motion refers is “Canada and the Nuclear Challenge: Reducing the Political Value of Nuclear Weapons for the Twenty-First Century”.

When ruling on relevance, that is what the Chair will be ruling on in the questions and comments and on debate.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the committee and took part in the nine months plus of listening to witnesses from across Canada. A lot of questions were raised. I believe all parties could agree with a lot of the questions and issues that were raised, like the dangers that MOX fuel might possess and so on.

I disagree with parts of that report and I would like to hear the member's comments. So much of it seemed to me to deal with an idyllic world. All of us would like to get rid of all the nuclear weapons. That goes without saying. The reality is that we are going into a more dangerous world in the 21st century than we came out of after the cold war in the early nineties. I would like the member to address that.

I also wonder from some of his comments whether he believes that Canada really does have an agreement already with NATO in terms of our plans for Kosovo. The third and final point is on the big problem with the international force and having talked to the Russians as recently as this morning, Milosevic refuses to have the Russians as part of any force as well. He does not want any force in there, peacekeeping or otherwise, made up of anyone, including the Russians.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to question the relevance of the questions.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The first part of the question is relevant.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue of nuclear weapons, the committee's proposal was that the committee call on the Government of Canada to urge a review of NATO's strategic concept. It is not a particularly revolutionary concept.

Some of us on the committee wanted to go further. Some of us clearly suggested that Canada should show leadership within that review process and urge an end to the policy of first use of nuclear weapons. The World Court ruling, the International Court of Justice ruling was a very compelling and very powerful argument in support of that. It was a very compelling and very powerful argument in support of negotiating a nuclear weapons convention.

What Canadians are absolutely appalled by is the position of the Reform Party which is that NATO should not even review its strategic concept on nuclear weapons. That is absolutely unbelievable. That is the position of the Reform Party. That is the position of the member. It was not even do not call for an end to first use of nuclear weapons. The Reform Party with its head in the sand, back in the cold war, said “Forget about that. We do not think NATO should be reviewing its strategic concept at all”.

If we want to talk about a failure of leadership on the part of the government, that is an abject and shameful failure of leadership by the Reform Party of Canada.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think I should say a few words about why we moved this motion today. We feel that there has not been enough opportunity to debate the things which the foreign affairs committee report addressed. This is certainly one way of creating that opportunity.

The report deals not only with nuclear weapons but with the ongoing role of NATO and the need for NATO to review its strategic concept which includes a great many things. We have not had the opportunity in this parliament, when it comes to policies adopted by NATO, to have the kind of debate we ought to have in this place with respect to the review of the strategic concept. Presumably this will be done this weekend at the NATO summit.

Yet has parliament had an opportunity to debate this and express ourselves about the very survival of the planet and whether NATO which contains a majority of the nuclear powers on the face of the earth is actually going to take some bold step to review its strategy, in particular its first use strategy or not? Surely that is something this parliament should have had an opportunity to address itself to. This is what we are trying to do here this morning, however briefly, depending on what the government's response is to this, whether it wants to continue the debate or whether it wants to snuff out the debate by moving to go to orders of the day.

We were concerned, as I think we ought to have been, that there was no debate in the House about the enlargement of NATO. It was a major decision that was debated in every other parliament of every other NATO country. This is embarrassing. Are we a banana republic run by order in council and executive committee? Even in the U.K., where it was not required that they do so, they had a debate in parliament about the enlargement of NATO. In every other country it was a requirement that their congress or their parliament address this issue. Yet here in Canada we just read about it in the Gazette .

The same thing is happening with respect to a number of issues on this. The same thing is happening now with respect to the strategic concept, and whatever it is the government proposes to contribute to the debate at the summit about review of the strategic concept, about out of area operations on the part of NATO which we are seeing precedents set for in Kosovo, without there having been a debate in this parliament about the principle of out of area operations by NATO, and what grounds and what criterion would be used or whether or not it is a good idea at all to transform NATO from a defensive alliance into an alliance that sees itself as policemen of the world or at least policemen of Europe in this case. We have never had that kind of debate.

One of the things that the committee addressed itself to primarily was the whole question of strategic concept. In that there is the key question of the first use of nuclear weapons, which has been and continues to be one of the primary objections of the New Democratic Party to the way in which NATO understands itself, the way in which it conducts itself and one of the primary reasons why we have had a policy over the years of withdrawal from NATO. We think that a policy of first use of nuclear weapons, and let us call it what it is, is terrorism writ large. In the name of whatever interest it is that NATO might think of itself as defending, we would be willing, if not to destroy the planet and the environment, to destroy civilian populations in ways that make Hiroshima and the bombing of Dresden and other calamities seem insignificant.

Is this the moral high ground of the 20th century that our strategic concept rests upon waging war against civilians in a way unknown in human history and waging war against the environment, therefore not just against our own generation but against all the generations to come?

This is a question of intergenerational morality in the final analysis. This is fine enough or stupid enough or criminal enough if we wanted to destroy ourselves, but to destroy the environment for future generations and perhaps even to destroy the human prospect is, as has been rightly called on many occasions, a blasphemy to set ourselves up as God and say “We will decide the future of the planet. We will decide whether the human prospect continues”.

It is in this deep rooted objection to nuclear weapons themselves, but also to a doctrine of first use of nuclear weapons, that the NDP raises this motion today. We think nothing could be more important than for parliament to address itself to this particular issue.

What about the question of MOX? The Minister of Foreign Affairs holds this up as one of the ways that Canada could contribute to the elimination of nuclear weapons. We could do a lot more to contribute to the elimination of nuclear weapons if we used what influence we have within NATO and at the United Nations to work for the abolition of nuclear weapons, not just some fine tuning of NATO strategic concept, and that may not happen in any significant way, but to work for the abolition of nuclear weapons. That is the way in which we could contribute to this process, rather than becoming a nuclear waste dump for the United States and perhaps for other countries as well, all in a way that is open to the charge that this is just a way of trying to keep the failing nuclear industry in this country alive by giving it some raison d'être or justification that is slipping away from it.

There is a lot to be debated here. I would hope that the government will seize this opportunity. It says we have an opportunity to do this because we have take note debates about various things that happen, particularly with respect to NATO and peacekeeping. However, that is not enough. We do not get to vote. We could vote on concurrence in this committee report. The House could express itself as to whether or not it agreed with the committee or with the government on these matters. If it comes to a decision with respect to the deployment of ground troops, we could have a vote in the House about that. Surely parliament should vote on the important things and not just on what it suits the government to have parliament express itself on.

That is not playing into the hands of Mr. Milosevic or whatever silly thing the Prime Minister said. How could the genuine, authentic exercise of democracy play into the hands of someone who is anti-democratic? Every time we confront a difficult situation do we put our democratic values aside? This reminds me of of what we did at APEC. Instead of showcasing democracy to the visiting totalitarian leaders by showing how we allow protesters and demonstrators to be seen by the people who they are protesting and demonstrating against, we hide them away. We become more like the people who we are allegedly trying to convert to our values.

Now we get the argument from the Prime Minister, “Oh, no, we don't want a vote in parliament. That might show division.” It might, but we do not know yet. I do not think the Prime Minister should presume upon the judgment of the House. However, even if it did, what would be wrong with that? What would be wrong with showing that we are a country in which people hold a variety of views and that those views are expressed in the parliament of that country. I do not understand the government's reluctance when it comes to involving parliament in this.

I was struck by the irony the other night when President Clinton, responding to the massacre, the terrible tragedy in Littleton, Colorado at the Columbine High School said “We have to teach our children that we need to solve our problems with words and not weapons”.

This is what we are urging upon our own government with respect to Kosovo, that it go to NATO and say that the strategy that it employed and which we approved in the beginning under circumstances that have now changed and under criteria that have now been abandoned, has failed. That it seek to solve this problem with diplomacy because obviously what it set about to do in a military context has not worked. It is time to review that concept, not just NATO's strategic concept, but to review this very significant approach that was being taken by NATO in Kosovo and get back to the table, consider some of the things that have been put forward by Mr. Pearson's son, Geoffrey Pearson and others, and see if we cannot find a way out of this mess that does not bring back the threat of cold war and an arms race escalation.

The other day I got a letter from the Physicians for Global Survival saying that one of the things that NATO and others should be considering is de-alerting all the nuclear forces on the planet for the year 2000 because of the Y2K concern. This is one of the biggest concerns that Canadians have with respect to Y2K, not whether their lights will be off for two days but whether they will have nuclear bombs raining down on them by accident. This is something it should be considering at the NATO summit as well.

NATO could show leadership here and say it will de-alert and take all its bombs off alert until it is absolutely certain that the problem is settled. Better that it took them off and kept them off but at the very least it could do that. I would hope that would be something the government would take to that meeting in Washington this weekend.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member who just spoke gave an excellent speech. He has a lot of experience in the House of Commons.

Whether they vote for the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois or the Progressive Conservative Party, the people have the opportunity every four years to elect parliamentarians to the House of Commons to assume their responsibilities.

I think it is up to the House of Commons and to each of the members present to assume their responsibilities. One of our responsibilities is to know whether the government supports all NATO's decisions. If that is the case, it is a bit worrisome.

If NATO decides for the Government of Canada, and we as parliamentarians have no part to play other than to bow and nod in agreement, as the Prime Minister does without even consulting the House, it is worrisome.

This week, the Bloc Quebecois presented a motion asking the government for the opportunity to exercise a very democratic right in the House of Commons: the members' right to vote and give the government the mandate to takes its responsibilities in terms of honouring commitments made to NATO.

If NATO decided tomorrow to send 200,000 soldiers, would the Government of Canada have the resources and materiel to respond? Things are getting complicated. Are civilians going to be called on to meet NATO's standards?

In closing, I want to ask the member a question. I do not know whether he agrees with me, but I am sure the Prime Minister does not have the backing of his own government and he cannot take a vote, because he is afraid his own government will vote no, when decisions have to be made in the war in Kosovo.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say for sure what the mind of the Liberal caucus is on this or whether that is the reason the Prime Minister does not want to have a vote. It may be so, but I would not underestimate the power of the Prime Minister to bring all his members into line even if some of them were against it.

The hon. member raises a good point when he talks about the Prime Minister's response to the whole question of Canada's role in NATO. The Prime Minister said that he would not be the only one not to go along and that he is a part of team, et cetera.

Maybe we should unpack this team analogy for a few seconds because there are different people on the team. We can go all the way from the captain to the water boy. They are all on the team. What we are saying about Canada being a part of the NATO team is that we should have something to say in the huddle. To use a football analogy, we should have something to say about what the play is going to be and what we are going to do.

In this case, are we going to seek a diplomatic solution? Are we going to be open-minded about various other ways of creating openings to get back to the table? No matter how many guys are lined up, are we going to keep pushing through and trying the same plays over and over again regardless of whether or not they work?

The Prime Minister would do well to reflect on his own team metaphor for NATO. We know that Canada cannot be the captain. We know who the captain is. However, we can have members on the team who have something significant to say and something significant to contribute and that is what we ask of Canada in this regard.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the debate. I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.