Debates of May 27th, 1999

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the precautionary principle there are many definitions. We can ask ourselves within the context of this discussion why we need a strong rather than a weak definition of the precautionary principle.

The answer comes by way of yesterday's report provided by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Brian Emmett. He writes that Canada is not properly monitoring and draws the attention of parliament in his report to the fact that Canada is not managing pesticides and toxic chemicals. He goes on to cite poor data collection, interministerial squabbling, cuts to science spending and pollution monitoring.

Cuts to science spending have been corrected in recent days by an announcement by the minister. However, there is a widespread feeling among senior scientists in government employment. They are alarmed at the government's declining ability to detect toxic substances and prevent their harmful effects.

In committee we recommended cleanup plans for industry based on a strong precautionary principle paving the way for the environment minister who would deem toxic chemicals to be inherently dangerous and implement controls without waiting for definite scientific proof of harm. Unfortunately the government under pressure from the Canadian Chemical Producers Association has diluted that requirement by ensuring by way of this amendment that the minister would have to have evidence of long term harm before acting and has burdened the minister with this additional cost effectiveness feature.

We can ask ourselves why we need a strong rather than a weak definition of this precautionary principle. Again we find the answer in yesterday's report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development when he writes that government departments “with shared responsibility for dealing with toxic chemicals not only do not co-operate, but in some cases have radically different views on what to do”. He points out that Environment Canada, fisheries and oceans, and health are often at odds with Industry Canada and the Department of Natural Resources. He states:

In many cases, departments are deeply divided on the risks posed by toxic substances and this has led to considerable conflict...In many cases, conflicts between departments have surpassed a healthy level of debate and have led to strained relations, indecision and inaction.

Therefore, because of the problems pointed out by Mr. Emmett, it becomes evident that what is needed is a strong precautionary principle that would help in improving the existing situation.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health on the recent announcement of the first phase of research projects under the Government of Canada's $40 million toxic substance research initiative. The TSRI is a joint Environment Canada and Health Canada initiative to fund scientific research into the links between toxic substances, human illness and environmental damage.

Building science capacity within federal departments is an important first step in improving the government's ability to make effective decisions to address urgent environmental and health issues. Without an adequate science capacity it becomes increasingly difficult to detect, understand and prevent the harmful effects of toxic substances on Canadians and their environment.

Protecting and strengthening science capacity is fundamental to making good environmental and health decisions as science itself evolves and changes. New information and research continually informs and improves our understanding of how ecosystems operate, of how toxic substances interact and impair health functioning of ecosystems and what is required for remediation, rehabilitation and restoration of these ecosystems.

However, lack of full scientific certainty must not immobilize us. It must not impair our ability to act. The precautionary principle means that we act in a cautionary way to ensure the protection of the environment and human health where threats of serious or irreversible harm exists.

Having 23,000 chemicals in use in Canada without proper evaluation is hardly cautionary. The member for Davenport has pointed out why we need a strong precautionary principle. This has been a longstanding public policy issue.

As early as 1950 Rachel Carson outlined in her book Silent Spring the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had declared that it was extremely likely that the potential hazard of DDT had been underestimated. By 1951 residues had been recovered from human milk samples tested by Food and Drug Administration scientists. This meant that breast-feeding human infants received a small but regular addition to the load of toxic chemicals building up in their bodies.

She went on to write that at that time it was believed that chemicals of that type freely crossed the barrier of the placenta. 1951 was also the year that my mother became pregnant and I was born in the spring of 1952. It took until 1978, the year that my daughter was born, before DDT was banned in Canada, six years after it was banned in the U.S. An entire generation had to pass from the time that evidence of harm existed before real action was taken. This is hardly a precautionary approach. And today, 21 years after being banned in Canada, DDT is still present in our environment and in our body tissues.

Thousands of tonnes are produced each year. It is used to stop the spread of malaria in some parts of the world. This is only one chemical story among thousands of others.

The post World War II baby boom generation has been exposed to more pesticide residues in childhood diets than any other generation before or since. However, the most significant results of this exposure will not be seen in the baby boom generation but in the next generation with our children and perhaps in many generations to follow.

Many health and environmental witnesses, for example the Canadian Institute of Child Health, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada and the World Wildlife Fund, pointed out to the committee that children are particularly vulnerable.

From before conception chemicals work to harm a fetus as fathers are subjected to toxics that can damage sperm. The fetus lives, grows and develops inside mothers who have been exposed to chemicals that can impair key body systems and functions. Even the purest food, breast milk, contains residues of harmful substances.

The sad irony is that the most pristine places on the planet are not immune. Women in the far north, people not responsible for the creation or use of these contaminants, have higher levels for example of PCBs in their breast milk than mothers in the south.

As the president of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Sheila Watt-Clouthier said last summer at the international POPs negotiating meeting in Montreal, “As we put our babies to our breasts, we feed them a noxious chemical cocktail that foreshadows neurological disorders, cancer, kidney failure, reproductive dysfunction. This should be a wake-up call to the world”.

Children interact with the environment in very different ways from adults. They eat dirt. Considering that we grow our food in dirt, this is not such a bad thing except when that dirt comes from a lawn recently sprayed by pesticides. Relative to their size and body weight, children breathe, eat and drink far more than adults. They breathe two times more air, eat three to four times more food and drink two and a half times more water. Their pathways of exposure to environmental pollutants are different from adults and the same level of chemicals in the environment can have much more dramatic effects on a growing child.

The incidence of some cancers may be affected by lifestyle allowing adults to reduce their risks by changing their lifestyle. However, as Sandra Steingraber points out in Living Downstream , “the lifestyle of toddlers has not changed much over the past half century. Young children do not smoke, drink alcohol, or hold stressful jobs”. Moreover, for the vast majority of cancers we cannot point to a cause in children or adults, but evidence is suggesting that increasing cancer rates are correlated with the tremendous rise in our use of chemicals.

We know these problems exist. They have been documented for decades. Few would argue that the environment and human health are top priorities for Canadians. In fact, Canadians view environment as the number one determinant of health. We must set environmental priorities as if children mattered. More than ever our children and their children require us to act in a cautionary manner and if we are to err, we should err on the side of protecting their health.

If this bill is really about pollution prevention and health protection, then we as parliamentarians must act in a precautionary manner. The addition of cost effective to this section of the bill would add an unnecessary barrier to act when a serious or irreversible threat exists.

I urge members of the House to defeat this amendment.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are not surprised at the way the Liberal government is now presenting Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

How is the government laying out Bill C-32? True to itself, it is once again taking the way of duplication.

In theory, Bill C-32 recognizes that the environment is a responsibility that is shared between the federal government and the provinces, but in fact, it does not devolve any power to Quebec or other provinces, it flies in the face of a true harmonization with all levels of government in environmental matters. The intent of Bill C-32 is to strengthen the primacy of the federal government as far as environmental protection is concerned.

This scenario is typical of the behaviour of the Liberal Party of Canada since its re-election in September 1997. It also fits in nicely with the speech from the throne that was read at the time to outline the policies of the Liberal Party of Canada and the present government.

Just as it happened in education and health care, the federal government is once again intruding in an area of shared jurisdiction.

When one looks at Bill C-32, one understands why our party decided to propose so many amendments. We worked very hard in committee. There were 60 sittings, many amendments were put forward and about 160 were adopted. That explains why there are now huge inconsistencies in the bill and many provisions that do not square any more.

There must be a large number of lawyers hoping that the bill will pass. There are so many clauses where the wording is not clear and where there are inconsistencies between what was initially proposed and what the clauses read now that we will see a battle such as we have never seen between the federal government and the provinces.

Our party has put forward a series of amendments aimed at correcting these inconsistencies and getting the federal government to understand the intents of a real environmental policy. A real environmental policy is not developed with centralisation tactics like the ones we have been seeing since this bill was introduced, but rather with harmonisation and consultation.

As I was saying earlier today, this government is trying to show us that it is consulting, listening and negotiating but, basically, it is always true to what it promised and to what it has been saying and what it has been doing for two years.

So, what are we to do? We are here to fight for Quebec's interests and the interests of Quebec's environment. Therefore we have to work hard. In clause 2, the federal government used the phrase “endeavour to act” instead of just “act”. I am concerned when I look at what has been happening in the last two years when the federal government says it is endeavouring to do something. I would much prefer to hear the word act, which means that something is actually being done.

When the government says that it is endeavouring to do something, this is a way for it to shirk its responsibilities and abover all to meddle in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

It was also decided to create an advisory committee to manage environmental issues. The members opposite are really good at coming up with all sorts of committees. In the last two years, we have witnessed the establishment of the Canada Revenue Agency, and more recently that of another board whose objective will literally be to grab $30 billion dollars out of the pockets of retired public servants, members of the RCMP and armed forces personnel.

I am a bit scared when I hear that a committee will be struck. What scares me most is when I hear that this committee will advise the two federal ministers and that it will take the federal minister's place to hear the provinces' claims.

With this new measure, the federal government will be able to do as it pleases, as usual, while pretending to be waiting for an answer from the provinces or consulting, and adopt really centralizing directives. If Bill C-32 is passed as amended by the committee after many sittings, Quebec and the other Canadian provinces will end up losing some of their jurisdiction.

It is difficult to believe the government when it talks about harmonization because, in the last two years, it has always been confrontational, in its dealings with the provinces.

The federal government is acting this way because of the upcoming WTO negotiations.

It must try to prove that Canada is a powerful country, but it is not. It is a divided country where there are many squabbles, because some people do not respect the constitution and constantly interfere in provincial jurisdictions. This will give Canada a very bad image when the WTO negotiations start next December. Let us face it, the other countries at the table will know what is going on in Canada.

The government tries by any means at its disposal to grab as much power as it can so as to get the most for Canada in the negotiations. However, before dealing on the international level, it should respect its own constitution, respect the provinces and above all consult them before submitting legislation like Bill C-32, which is now before the House.

Have we not talked enough about Bill C-32? It has been a long time since another bill was debated for so long: 60 sittings, 580 amendments proposed, 160 of which were adopted. As a result, the bill we have in front of us is completely different from the first draft. The only thing that stayed the same is that it promotes confrontation instead of harmonization. We also know that there were no consultations but the same old very strong tendency of the federal government to impose its views on the provinces, particularly Quebec.

This is why I once again ask the government and the hon. members across the way to take the time to read the amendments brought forward today and to realize that they are so important that, if they were adopted and included in Bill C-32, we would have a bill harmonizing relations between the federal government and the provinces. I very much hope that this will happen.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to address the Group No. 4 amendments to Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I compliment my colleagues in the NDP on their motions which propose to add a definition of endocrine disrupters to the definition section of the bill. These substances are referred to in the information gathering section of the bill but are not in the definition section where it would permit the government to more directly identify harmful substances which are hormone disrupting substances that have very negative implications with respect to human health.

For those individuals who are not that familiar with hormone disrupting substances I would like to share some of my concerns. These substances have the capacity to affect the nervous system or immune system particularly of children yet to be born or in the early years of development.

The world wildlife fund, physician organizations and learning organizations have pointed out that substances such as DDT have hormone disrupting tendencies or capacities which have very negative implications on the development of children, their capacity to learn, their nervous system, their immune system and their hormone system. This NDP amendment is worthy of the support of the House.

I also applaud the efforts of numerous individuals within the committee who have advanced this subject. The original Bill C-32 which came to committee had no reference to hormone disrupting substances.

Through the collaboration of my Conservative colleagues, the member for Jonquière, the NDP environment critic from Churchill, the member for York North, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and others, we were able to turn up the political tinderbox to ensure the information gathering component of the bill.

Canada is already a world leader in terms of studying the hormone disrupting substances on which the bill now has the capacity to gather information. Eventually we will be able to use that research to ensure that we are protecting human health in that regard.

We had a definition that was very similar to the definition in the NDP amendment. Some individuals would have us believe that there is an internationally accepted definition with respect to endocrine disrupting substances. That is not quite true. In fact the NDP definition that was passed under the information gathering section is essentially a melange, a blend of what the U.S. EPA actually approved and the Weybridge definition. Departmental officials with Environment Canada think this is a very workable definition for us to utilize.

Going back to the other definition known as the Weybridge definition, some individuals would advocate it as being the most internationally accepted definition. It is one that many countries have been exposed to, but by no means is there any consensus. The definition we have right now is supported by some environmental NGOs concerned about human health, so that is the definition we should go into as well.

There is another amendment which the Conservative Party will be supporting. Again I am referring to my colleagues in the NDP and their definition with respect to aboriginal peoples which is taken directly from the Constitution. We support that amendment as well.

We are looking at clarifying some definitions with respect to recyclable materials, endocrine disrupting substances and aboriginal people as outlined in the Constitution.

Those are the amendments I wanted to highlight in Group No. 4. Those are the ones we will be supporting. Again I applaud the efforts of my colleague from Churchill.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to have the opportunity to speak to Group No. 4, a portion of distinct amendments that are coming into play.

I refer to a statement that was made during clause by clause consideration. After listening to the witnesses that had come forth and presented in honesty their reflections on Bill C-32 as it was originally drafted, we had the task of going through the bill clause by clause. The only thought that came to mind was that we were dealing with a document that resembled pulp fiction. It had good covers. It had a colourful preamble. It had a good title. However the inside of the bill had no powers.

We had cost effective measures that were highlighted in terms of the precautionary principle. We had powers that were diminished by the minister. We had pollution prevention. Virtual elimination was certainly the highlight of the elimination task of the bill. It seemed like we were continuing to pollute the environment and to be a major disruption to our human health.

Along the way and through committee we were able to work with all the party members who were in attendance and thoroughly put their minds, their thoughts and their consciences to work. We came up with Bill C-32 which resembled the needs of Canadians and was balanced on the sustainable development model of the environment, the economy and social well-being. All of these balances were reflected.

What we have with the amendments that have come forward, and a lot of them are highlighted in Group No. 4, is that the government is basing them on cost effectiveness. That is a major detriment to what we have to do. If we are going to take measures to protect our health and our environment we cannot qualify them on cost effectiveness. It is reprehensible that it would be considered at this point. The Liberal cabinet is very adamant about this. We would like to challenge the cabinet to put a price tag on human health and on the protection of our children. That is basically what is happening here. Once we use the terminology of cost effectiveness we put a price tag on the measures and their effects.

There was a very brave Liberal member who in the clause by clause review brought forward the elimination of cost effectiveness. In the parliamentary process, the democratic process, we voted and we all agreed that cost effectiveness should not be part of the precautionary principle terminology and it was voted out. Democracy ruled. Now the Liberal cabinet is not satisfied with that process. It has not respected the democratic process and has come back to the House, with its power and strength in numbers, to try to bring back cost effectiveness.

I challenge members to vote their conscience for the well-being of their families and the well-being of their children and to vote in favour of a strong environmental bill.

Attaching conditions to protective measures is certainly something that was highlighted throughout the deliberations.

I have some examples that I would like to share with members. Recently we heard about Frederick Street in Sydney, Nova Scotia, where toxic ooze began to leak into backyards. It made headlines a year ago. It was on a railway bed. This toxic ooze was included on the priority substances list. Arsenic and other chemicals were in this concoction which was leaking.

What was cost effective? Cost effective was to leave the kids and put a little plastic fence around the area, which was very cheap. It cost maybe $50 for the fence and $10 to hire somebody to put it up. For $60 there was a fence. That was the cost effective measure for environmental protection to keep the kids away from the ooze.

Then this spring the ooze was showing up in their basements. As they were dusting off their bicycles to enjoy the weather, with winter gone, these kids found this ooze on the basement floors and walls of their Frederick Street homes. What is cost effective? It was a major embarrassment. The environment minister has now made some assurances that the federal government will roll up its sleeves to attack this problem. Is it going to take atrocities to knock us on our heads before we smarten up and take action?

Basically we have to get past this pulp fiction issue. We cannot make plans, have good intentions and put up a neon sign saying we are open for business when we have nothing to sell. We have to have substance. We have to have the human resources and the financial resources to act and enforce the laws in this bill.

I would like to continue to speak about the cost effectiveness issue which is a major detriment in terms of Group No. 5. However, I would like to speak about the definitions which are included in Group No. 4.

We have included a definition that covers hormone disrupting substances. It is a major accomplishment in the country and in the world to have this definition included in the bill. It was included in part 3 of CEPA. It is a clause which deals with information gathering. We are adding the hormone disrupting definition at the beginning of the bill so that it plays and resonates throughout the whole bill. If the minister decides, beyond the information that she will be gathering, to make regulations to that effect, there will be a definition in place and we will not have to look for a new one. This bill will have some of the homework done before the minister takes action.

This definition did not have the support and the collaboration of the ministers. The parliamentary secretary played a role. A colleague of mine filled in on the day, a very successful day, when we managed to get this definition. A lot of people remember that historic moment. I believe that everybody deserves a pat on the back for making this happen. It was a win situation for all of us.

Witnesses from the World Wildlife Fund helped to bring forward this definition and they should be congratulated as well. It has been approved by academic, scientific and professional health circles throughout the world. In terms of gender benders we are on the right track and this definition needs to be included.

Included in this group is the definition of aboriginal people. We overlooked this situation. There was a well intentioned inclusion of the aboriginal ecological knowledge of this country where the significance and importance of aboriginal knowledge was recognized.

A lot of peoples and tribes have lived here for many generations, many decades before us, and they have a tremendous knowledge of the ecological and biological diversity of this country. If we do not tap that knowledge and give it a weight which is equal to scientific knowledge we will be missing a great wealth of knowledge.

Aboriginal people should be defined as the Indian, Metis and Innu peoples of Canada. That should put us well on track for a good definition.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the few minutes that we have left, I would first like to address the precautionary principle, which is the issue in this group of amendments.

Frankly, I must admit there are reasons for the position taken by the government. In its response to the committee report, entitled “This is About Our Health”, the government clearly explained that it would introduce the precautionary principle according to the Rio definition. This definition includes the notion of cost effectiveness. This is what the government had decided to do.

At the same time, there is another way of looking at this amendment. When we got to committee, the member for Davenport introduced an amendment concerning the administrative duties section of the bill, which aimed at ignoring the notion of cost effectiveness.

I think it was a pity to reintroduce this notion of cost effectiveness. The committee had a chance to debate it fairly. All sides had a look at it, voted on it and the amendment presented by my colleague for Davenport was voted in. It was in the bill. There was no earthly reason that it should have been changed again. The real definition, admittedly, was part of the government's response, but it is not sacrosanct.

In several international instruments which the government has signed definitions do not include the cost effectiveness notion. In fact, in our oceans act the precautionary principle is written this way:

Whereas Canada promotes the wide application of the precautionary approach to the conservation, management and exploitation of marine resources in order to protect these resources and preserve the marine environment;

There is no notion there of cost effectiveness. This is a law of our own government.

It was a real pity that we lost a wonderful chance to improve on the Rio definition. That is what the environment and the protection of human health is about. There is an evolution happening. The concepts that we knew in 1992, which might have been the subject of a compromise in Rio, will not be there forever. If they evolve for the better, toward better protection of the environment and human health, then why not? Why go back in time? Why sacrifice a gain, something which is positive, that was gained within our committee?

In the last minutes that I have left, I would have liked to touch on an issue that was raised by several speakers from the Bloc Quebecois. They are using all the debates to blame the federal government. Everything goes well in Quebec and everything goes badly at the federal level. Everything that goes badly is the federal government's fault. The same old song.

I heard some speakers tell us why their laws were forward-looking, how everything was going well in Quebec. Well, I would like to remind them of a couple of things.

First of all, over the last two years, the environmental groups themselves have blamed the Quebec government for its failure in the environmental area. Very recently, the Quebec premier, a former environment minister, suspended the application of part of Quebec's environmental legislation, the Loi des impacts environnementaux, which is absolutely perfect. He suspended its application to have a Hydro Quebec power line built pursuant to an order in council. The issue was brought to court and Quebec's case was dismissed.

What did Quebec do? It passed a special law to continue building the line, even though the court had said it should abide by its own environmental legislation.

It is totally farfetched to say that there is disproportionate centralization on the part of the federal government. Canada is the most decentralized country in the world.

I want to remind Bloc Quebecois members that 24 federal regulations related to the Environmental Protection Act and the Fisheries Act have been transferred to the provinces, three of them to Quebec. In Quebec, those regulations cover 61 plants, more plants than all the others together.

The commissioner's report, which members of the Bloc Quebecois so abundantly quoted earlier, shows that, of those 61 plants, 20 1995, 20% were at fault in 1996 and fully a third of them did not comply in 1997. What did Quebec do? It sent warning letters. There was only one prosecution.

The federal government is not always at fault. I am quite ready to admit that, as democrats, we can sometimes condemn others, but there is a lot to be said here.

I would like to thank all members who worked so diligently on this bill, the officials of the ministry, the parliamentary secretary and others. All we want is to better the quality of life of the people we are here to serve. I have certain reservations about this bill. They are few in number; however, four or five are key.

I hope that somehow between now and the final passage of this bill we will find some wisdom together to rectify what we feel are the inherent flaws in this bill so that all of us can join together to vote for it. That would, by far, be my fondest wish.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from April 19 consideration of the motion.

Reform Of International Organizations

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for raising the issue of conflict prevention and how international organizations can be reformed to play a more effective role in this regard.

We are all aware of the radical changes that the world has experienced since the end of the cold war. While the threat to the global community's security posed by the cold war has been removed, the number and intensity of violent conflicts has escalated over the last decade. In recent years conflicts have taken an enormous toll on many countries in Africa particularly, which has seen its progress seriously undermined by debilitating wars.

The face of war has also been transformed by the large majority of conflicts now taking place within the borders of states, rather than between states. Many of these intra-state conflicts have had a devastating impact within the country and on the region as a whole. Civilians account for the majority of victims of such conflicts and are often targeted by belligerent forces. Indeed, many of the threats to the security of the individual are the direct or indirect result of conflict, very often of the intra-state variety.

Despite the indisputable importance of conflict prevention to the people of the world, the international community does indeed find itself short of adequate tools to manage conflict and to consolidate peace processes. Global and regional institutions, most of which were created in the years immediately following the end of the second world war, have been slow to adapt to the realities and demands of a rapidly evolving global environment.

It would be misleading, however, to conclude that the shortcomings of the international community's capacity to play a more effective role in preventing conflicts, or indeed responding to an early stage of emerging conflict, is due solely to the flaws in the structure of mandates of international organizations. In many cases, the missing ingredient prevents timely and effective intervention and that indeed is the political will and the willingness of members of the international community to commit the required resources.

Canada believes that a dynamic and responsive United Nations should be at the centre of the international community's efforts to prevent conflict. Many components of the United Nations have a contribution to make in building a global community less prone to conflict.

The security council has a central and irreplaceable role to play in the maintenance of peace and security. During our current term as a member of the security council, Canada is determined to press the council to assume its proper leadership role which it has frequently abdicated in recent years.

Furthermore, the government believes that the council must re-examine the traditional interpretation of its mandate. We have advocated that the security council needs to broaden its horizons to addressing emerging threats. A credible and relevant security council must be quickly apprised of emerging intra-state conflicts and seek ways to prevent them from occurring.

We reject the argument that the security council should limit its attention to traditionally defined conflicts between states. The human security consequences of intra-state conflicts and the potential of such conflicts to destabilize adjacent countries demand preventive action by the international community. The security council is the appropriate forum that should be assuming the lead in such action.

During our presidency of the security council in February, Canada convened and chaired a special debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. In addressing this debate, the Minister of Foreign Affairs called for “vigorous, comprehensive and sustained action” by the council to address the tragic brutalization of civilians which characterizes so many of these contemporary conflicts. He identified four challenges facing the council. These include the prevention of conflict, the respect for international humanitarian and human rights law, the pursuit of those who would violate humanitarian norms and standards and, finally, the issue of the instruments of war.

I am pleased that the security council agreed to ask the secretary-general to prepare a report, due this September, which will identify concrete measures that can be taken to improve the protection of civilians in armed conflict. We see this as one step in an ongoing process which will provide an improved level of protection to the vulnerable.

Canada has also stated clearly to the United Nations membership our view that the security council must not focus on solving the problems of one region while remaining indifferent to the problems of others. Political will and leadership, including the large and powerful members of the international community, are needed in order that the security council may play its proper role in preventing and resolving conflict.

In addition to our efforts to encourage the security council to assume greater responsibility in preventing conflict, Canada is active in many other ways to enhance our own and the international community's capacity and effectiveness in this regard. Of particular significance is the Canadian peacebuilding initiative launched in 1996 which is designed to improve the coordination of Canadian peacebuilding activities, both government and NGO, and to strengthen Canada's contribution to international peacebuilding.

Peacebuilding is the effort to strengthen the prospects for internal peace and decrease the likelihood of violent conflict. It is rapidly becoming an essential element of the UN's involvement in conflict-torn societies. We will meet these new challenges by strengthening the UN's capacity to prevent conflict, respond rapidly when conflict erupts and to provide post-conflict peacebuilding instruments.

Making peace, maintaining peace and building sustainable peace must be understood not as three separate elements but as three vital and interdependent components of the same mission; that of eliminating violent conflict and building lasting peace in all societies.

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that the government appreciates the interest of the hon. member in the issue of conflict prevention. The government shares the view that the global community must find ways to enhance its ability to prevent conflict, including international organizations. More effective conflict prevention is clearly essential to assuring the human security of people in many parts of the world.

Canada is working actively and energetically at the United Nations and in other forums with a wide range of states that share our commitment to developing an improved conflict prevention capacity of the global community.

The motion under consideration contains the proposal that the government should convene an international meeting to develop a multilateral plan to reform international organizations to enhance their conflict prevention capabilities. This is a timely suggestion. However, the fact is that there are ongoing efforts, both formal and informal, involving a broad range of countries that are aimed precisely at the objective contained in the hon. member's motion. Canada is at the forefront of those efforts and is determined to find ways to improve the international community's conflict prevention capabilities.

The complexity of the issues involved and the divergent approaches of members of the global community would suggest that meaningful progress toward enhanced conflict prevention capacity of international organizations will likely be incremental rather than revolutionary. Launching a new process to promote an end that is already being pursued as a priority by Canada and many other countries in different forums is not likely to add value. In fact, it could detract resources and focus from ongoing efforts despite the best intentions of those who would propose such initiatives.

For this reason, the government is not convinced that the adoption of this motion would be conducive to advancing the worthy objective of improving the international community's conflict prevention capability.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to the motion from the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I would like to read it back into the record. It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should convene a meeting of “like-minded nations” in order to develop a multilateral plan of action to reform international organizations (e.g. International Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations) so that they can identify the precursors of conflict and establish multilateral conflict-prevention initiatives.

It should be easy to support the motion because it talks in general terms about the need for reform. As speaker after speaker will admit, there is a crying need for reform in each of the multilateral organizations mentioned in the motion. The theme is common within the organizations themselves as they seek to change their mandate in this post-cold war era. They are searching for answers and a consensus from the international community and the leaders in the international community on where to go from here.

The 21st century does not look like it is going to be the century of peace and prosperity. If anything, this post-cold war era has been an era of increasing regional conflicts that require the thoughtful intervention of world leaders and community leaders before the conflicts erupt into violence.

The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has a bit of a track record in this area that should be noted as people consider this. It was his initiative, long before it was a topical or faddish thing to do, to support the abolition of landmines. It was his initiative, both nationally here in Canada and internationally as a medical doctor and dealing with the aftermath and fallout of the landmine situation, which started the ball rolling in many countries as people decided to come together.

How did they come together? They came together in a meeting of like-minded nations—the same sort of initiative the member has put forward here—to talk about ways to do away with that curse on mankind that is the landmine.

Long before Princess Diana got on board and the government grabbed this initiative and ran with it, the member from Juan de Fuca had started the idea in many people's minds that this could be achievable. Some of the same protests that I hear from the government side about it being hard to do and that it has already tried to do it here, there and everywhere, we found that when we got together in what became the Canada initiative, we could change the world. We did, we have and we should be thankful for that.

The motion deals with, as some would say, a good theoretical discussion, but it is far more than a theoretical idea. It is an idea whose time has come. When the government chooses to disengage from the debate or says that it is already doing all it can, we see, as we saw today in Pakistan, what happens when we disengage too much.

We have disengaged from India and Pakistan because of our anger over what they have done on the nuclear front. We now hear that a couple of planes have apparently been shot down in the area between these two nations. One has to wonder what the precursors were to the conflict. One has to wonder what was in the tea leaves. If only we had an active international organization of like-minded nations that saw the precursors to the violence, to list them and to find ways to mitigate them by working through the reform of international organizations.

Every night on the news we see the situation in the Balkans. We hear people, who seem to be coming out of the woodwork, saying, “For 10 years we have told you this was coming. You could see it”. All the evidence was in place and all the signs were there, but none of the international organizations chose to read the signs and react in any meaningful way.

Now we are reaping the whirlwind. That goes for the Balkans, the India-Pakistan situation and most of the continent of Africa. People come back with horrible eye witness accounts. They say that it has been going on and building for a number of years and that if we had just looked at the signs we would have seen the disaster that was coming.

When disaster struck in Rwanda people literally cried on television. They said they told the United Nations there were signs that big genocidal problems were brewing and that it had better do something. The United Nations is just not geared react. It reacts after there is a war, a conflict or a genocide taking place, but it does not have the precursors in place, as this motion says, to deal with a situation before it erupts in violence.

That is why the motion is so timely. It is interesting that we have had a series of motions in this session dealing with either peacekeeping initiatives or conflict prevention initiatives such as this one. I guess it is a sign of the times. It is the sign of the need that many backbenchers see even if the government does not. Backbenchers see the urgency of finding ways to deal with the changing international situation.

As I mentioned earlier that situation is not less tense because of the end of the cold war. All that has done is allowed a series of smaller but hugely important regional conflicts to take root and to fester unchecked until they erupt in violence.

When people are considering the importance of this issue they should go through the House of Commons list of why this motion should be considered important. Why should it be votable, for example? Is it something of international significance? The answer in this case is an obvious yes. The government says it is doing all it can do or should do so we should not worry about it.

The truth is the international organizations have said this is something they have to grapple with. In the case of Pakistan-India we have spent billions of dollars in aid but have not spent at least a small portion of that on making sure we have identified the precursors to conflict, finding ways to reduce those conflicts and finding ways through the World Bank, the IMF and the United Nations to help reduce the tension levels rather than just saying the answer must be more money. Money is not the answer in these situations. It is to identify a whole series of indicators and then deal with them through international organizations.

First, the motion meets the criteria of being of international significance. Second, it is important because it is on the cutting edge of foreign policy. I mentioned that there has been a series of initiatives from both sides of the House on foreign policy issues.

This initiative does not conflict with the government's agenda. It dovetails nicely into what I believe Canadians would like us to do in the House, that is to work co-operatively not only in this place but internationally to move forward this peacekeeping, peacemaking and war preventing measure.

Third, it capitalizes on something that Canadians too often take for granted, our good international reputation. It would send a signal to the international community and the people who watch these debates and are keenly interested in our foreign affairs that we have taken this matter seriously, that we will make it a priority and that we are willing to work co-operatively with like minded nations to make sure that peace is not just a theory but a reality in the 21st century.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I too am very pleased to take part in the debate on this private member's motion which deals with the need to develop a multilateral plan of action to reform international organizations such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

The crisis we are facing today is defining how history will remember this era as one of interstate conflict with grave humanitarian implications. Whereas the first half of the 20th century was characterized by wars between states, today this concept seems to moving toward obsolescence. Countries with deep seated pluralist traditions are now facing dissent from within their borders as a result of intensifying extremist tendencies.

Strident voices and belligerent actions replace peaceful cohabitation. Victims of these so-called modern conflicts are more often than not civilians and this situation denotes increasing violations of basic human rights. While the principle of state sovereignty restricts external intervention, the international community should never justify an action through the mindless invocation of this principle.

There is one thing we should never forget about the sacrosanct principle of national sovereignty, and that is that a nation's sovereignty counts for nothing if it does not exist for the much greater good of the sovereignty of its population.

The roll call of these new-style conflicts is a long one. The names of a few countries will suffice: Algeria, Sierra Leone, Rwanda. They will forever be associated with the atrocities of which they were the theatres and their populations the actors, the spectators and the victims. While our attention is turned elsewhere, some of these crises continue to rage. But no example is more striking by its immediacy and its scale than the crisis in Kosovo.

What will be remembered of this very sad chapter in the history of humanity? Milosevic's intractability, the horrendous atrocities that are taking place and a very small part of which have been discovered so far or the obvious ineffectuality of the international community. While it is true that people are not insensitive to what is happening in Kosovo and that many have shown a generosity that has been of a great help to the refugees, we are left with no choice but to conclude that the NATO strikes have been ineffective.

The international community has seen its efforts reduced to nought by the stubborn and single minded perseverance of Milosevic. If the primary goal of the operation allied force includes facilitating the timely return of refugees to their homes, the intensity of the air attacks brings into question their utility. The reintegration of refugees into their homeland becomes more and more difficult the longer the attacks rain down on a country steadily being reduced to rubble. Peace must be negotiated even if this process has to go forward with a leader accused of numerous crimes against humanity.

As the crisis drags on, the realization that there are only two remaining options is crystallizing: we can perpetuate violence or we can choose to negotiate. The last few weeks of NATO's air campaign have demonstrated the futility of the former option. Negotiation is the only viable way to achieve a resolution to the conflict and a lasting peace.

My intervention today is not designed to focus on the atrocities being committed in the former Yugoslavia but rather to identify and denounce the general inefficiency of international organizations that deal with the types of situations which have been clearly evidenced by the crisis in Kosovo.

The architecture of international organizations needs a profound revision as their current form highlights their irrelevance. The relative lethargy of the United Nations can be partly explained in light of the organization's subordinations to the political whims of the security council. In order to address the UN's paralysis, a system whereby a member state's monetary contributions are respected must be devised and implemented. I must say parenthetically that the United States needs to know this and know this well.

By its very structure, the UN is obsolete. We can be pleased with the great work that the UN has accomplished for peace and development in these last fifty years, but we must not forget that more could have been done. To ensure it remains effective, the UN must adapt to the new realities. It was built on the respect of the sovereignty of nations. This principle still holds as long as a nation's sovereignty exists for the good of its people.

This is why, in the face of blatant and repeated human rights violations in a country, the international community has a duty to overlook the notion of sovereignty and to react in order to correct the situation.

The actions taken by NATO, which circumvented the UN security council, clearly show the obsolescence of the two organizations. Even though NATO leaders, including Canada, are prestigious members of the United Nations, this did not prevent them from bypassing the UN. On the other hand, the UN did not respond to such action. How can we tolerate such a blatant lack of co-operation?

I believe it is Canada's responsibility to take a leadership role in the face of such obsolescence. We avoid consuming outdated products. We update our old software. We offer retirement packages to tired workers to make room for younger blood. Similarly, it is our duty to review the role of our major organizations.

Whereas our international organizations were born out of the crucible of the second world war and designed to deal with the post-1945 era, it is plainly evident that the contemporary international security environment has changed dramatically since.

As previously mentioned the very nature of wars has evolved considerably. Today we face significant crises in both development and the environment. Poverty continues to grow and foreign aid has taken on the guise of public relations gestures instead of bona fide humanitarian assistance.

Both World Bank and the International Monetary Fund actions leave much to be desired in form and function. Loans from these organizations have served to put into debt the poorest countries on earth, to the point where they can never hope to escape from their debt traps. This situation is akin to sacrificing future generations and represents the antithesis of sustainability. Poor countries have become loan dependent, a state of affairs perpetuated by the western world and the actions of international financial organizations.

Numerous development projects have proved hopelessly inappropriate, dealing with short term results at the expense of the long term viability and sustainability of the populace. Truly sustainable practices and development must aim to enfranchise their brothers and sisters throughout the developing world and must result in a significant form of international organizations.

We must restructure and rework international environmental policies. If these policies are to be effective they must be applied and implemented globally. By their very nature international environmental policies necessitate a strong guiding role for international organizations. As such the inherent inefficiencies displayed by international organizations in dealing with environmental concerns and issues must be addressed by the reform of these institutions.

The time has come to convene a global summit with the aim of reforming international organizations, rewriting the international code of conduct in order that our organizations not only reflect contemporary realities but also new more efficient modes of actions to deal with the challenges of today and tomorrow.

While it is critical to correct the current situation, the solution must not be risky. It must constantly be adjusted to the changing realities of our world. This is why it will be essential to introduce a motion to review major international organizations every decade.

We must work toward establishing international institutions that priorize human needs and rights. The sovereignty of states must be tempered by the primacy of human rights. Thus the flagrant abuse of this paramount principle can and should be met by swift and meaningful intervention by the international community.

I thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for this very important and useful motion.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I begin by thanking the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for this thought provoking and important motion. It is a very timely motion because we live in a period of immense change. There are tremendous challenges facing Canada in a global environment.

Traditionally Canada has played a very important role as a middle power, a role that far exceeds our size as a nation, our population and our ability to influence affairs. Our chain of events in global events has been significant.

I would argue that over the past several years, particularly since 1993, there has been a decline in the role we have played particularly in the defence of human security and in the traditional linkage that has existed between foreign policy in Canada and human rights which has existed for some time. I would argue that there has been a significant de-linkage since 1993. More focus has been placed on trade missions than on actual foreign policy in a very positive sense.

Since the end of the cold war the evolution of human security has increased its pace significantly. There have been over 100 conflicts since the end of the cold war. Most of these have been interstate conflicts. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has said there are approximately 40 current conflicts. Many of these conflicts are between governments and their own people. In that type of environment the evolution and recognition of human security becomes increasingly important.

The evolution of human security certainly did not begin at the cessation of the cold war. Some would point to the birth of the UN in 1948 and also to the Bretton Woods institutions that began in 1945 as the modern genesis of the notion of human security. From their very beginning the World Bank's and the UN's basic principles and mandates have recognized human security.

The mission of the World Bank is “to help people help themselves and their environment by providing resources, sharing knowledge, building capacity, and forging partnerships in the private and public sectors; to fight poverty with passion and professionalism for lasting results”. These basic tenets of the World Bank are focused more on human security than national security.

The United Nations charter initially said “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small”.

The focus from the beginning with the UN and the World Bank has been on human security and it certainly should be. The IMF is more focused on the financial side of things in providing and ensuring that nation states have the ability through financial systems and economies to actually provide successful economies for their people.

Globalization is playing a key role in the evolution of human security as well. Technology and telecommunications play a role in bringing the atrocities of war home to people in nations like Canada and creating political and public pressure for us to become involved in conflicts such as in Kosovo. There has been an interesting incidence whereby we have seen NATO, developed as a defence alliance for the cold war, actually playing a key role in the defence of human security.

Some would argue that the role NATO is playing in Kosovo should be played by the UN. In fact, it is the failure of the member states in the UN to agree and to come to some sort of common goal relative to the conflict in Kosovo. The UN is not playing that role but NATO has been able to play a very important role and one that many of us share.

The role that Canada has played in the landmines treaty with the UN countries is further evidence of the evolution of human security.

The issue of institutional reform for the Bretton Woods institutions and for the UN and other institutions, including the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which are involved in economic development and human security issues is very important and timely because there is a tremendous amount of redundancy between these organizations. There is also a significant institutional reform needed individually and collectively and an increased level of co-operation. There has not been in the past enough co-operation and communication between these institutions. As a result sometimes the goals have been muddied. Certainly the effort to achieve those goals has been even more confusing.

One of the difficulties with the UN is that it is very difficult to gain agreement from the member states on some common goals. Recently I believe China had some difficulty with supporting the UN peacekeepers in Macedonia because Macedonia has had a position in the past of co-operation with Taiwan.

The U.S. support for the UN has varied over time. The payment of dues by the U.S. to the UN has been a perennial issue. Even though the President of the U.S. may be supportive of the UN in a general sense, Congress sometimes is less so. If we read some of the comments of Senator Helms in that regard, we can see very clearly that one of the reasons many Americans are opposed to supporting the UN and paying the U.S. dues to the UN is simply that the U.S. does not agree with any devolution of the role of the U.S. as a national power or as a superpower and feel that supporting the UN will in some way reduce its power in a global sense. There are member states like the U.S. that are in some ways reflecting what is a pre cold war mentality in a post cold war environment.

I want to speak briefly about the IMF. Many people are critical of the IMF. I think some of the criticisms are legitimate, but by and large a lot of the criticisms I hear are not accurate. The IMF in spite of some of its failures has had some very significant successes. If we go back to 1995 and look at the bailout of Mexico for instance, that is an example where quick action by the IMF and the U.S. and the $40 billion bailout did help prevent a meltdown in Mexico and Latin America that would have played a significant and deleterious role in those economies.

It is questionable whether IMF support has helped in Southeast Asia. Again there were some criticisms of the IMF, both in the Southeast Asia crisis and in the ruble crisis in Russia last fall and late last summer. Many of the criticisms of the IMF have been based on the rather stringent conditions the IMF set on lending to those countries. I would argue that some of those conditions are very reasonable. Some of the conditions for instance in Russia have been that Russia gains a functional payment system, a functional tax system. These are reasonable demands.

The IMF conditions are significant to the debt issue. The debt issue in developing nations is extremely important. There are initiatives to retire the debts of some of the developing nations that are suffering under egregious debt loads at this time and are simply unable to provide the infrastructure they need in the long term in terms of education and health care and at the same time meet these conditions.

The World Bank has undergone some significant reform under Wolfensohn. It is the type of reform that I would like to see. I believe that this type of meeting, this type of initiative is very important.

In closing, in the long term I would like to see more focus on initiatives like microcredit, issues like early childhood intervention in some of these countries, and some of the pre-emptive measures that actually seek to focus on the causes as opposed to dealing with the conflicts once they have come about.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague for putting this motion before parliament. Certainly it has triggered quite a bit of debate and interest. It is quite timely to speak about issues of importance not only to our country but to the world as a whole.

I do have some problems with the motion because it mixes two different animals. I wish it had focused on only one element, either the United Nations or the international financial institution. We would have had a more meaningful debate.

I am going to talk a bit about the economic situation around the world and what Canada is doing as a nation both on the bilateral level and on the multilateral level in order to push forward the agenda of reform, not only for international financial institutions but also for international financial stability.

As one would say, if something is rumbling in my tummy it is time for something good to eat. If a nation is not doing well economically and if the people of a nation do not have enough food on the table, that to a large extent could create not only an economic destabilizing factor but also a political destabilizing factor. It is extremely important to have good economic stability in a society in order to have good political stability.

Canada on that front has done a tremendous amount of work. For the record I would like to indicate some of the initiatives this government has taken when dealing with poor countries and their debts.

Over $53 million has been contributed to the most indebted countries trust funds. The government has given an additional $33 million of which $21 million has been earmarked for use by the African Development Bank and $1 million for Guyana. The government has written off a large portion of its outstanding official assistance debt to the poorest countries. To date we have forgiven over $1.2 billion in overseas development assistance debt.

In 1992 the previous government announced a major debt conversion initiative for Latin America involving up to $145 million of CIDA as well as ODA debt into local currency to help finance environment and development projects. So far about six countries have taken advantage of it, such as Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru and Costa Rica. An agreement has been reached with the Dominican Republic and should be signed sometime in the near future.

On the multilateral level the government outlined at the 1995 G-7 meeting in Halifax a six point plan. One is to ensure appropriate monetary policy through the G-7 central banks, paying close attention and giving appropriate weight to the risk of a future slowdown in the global economy. The second is expeditious action to strengthen national financial systems and international oversight. Third is development of a practical guide or road map for safe capital liberalization in developing countries. Fourth is the agreement to work urgently toward a better mechanism to involve private sector investors in the resolution of a financial crisis, including the possibility of an emergency standstill clause. Finally, there is greater attention to the needs of the poorest countries to ensure they receive the resources and support they need to reduce poverty and begin growing.

Let me stress one point out of this six point plan, the strengthening of the financial systems around the world. Very few countries around the world put out financial statements indicating the financial affairs of their nation.

There is no international standard. Different countries report in different ways on the state of the nation when it comes to the financial end of things. To that extent, Canada is one of the best countries in the world when it comes to issuing its annual financial statements, which makes it one of the most transparent economies in the world.

One of the first things that we have to do as a society, as a government and as a parliament is to work at the bilateral level to encourage and assist countries, in particular third world countries, to start developing proper financial statements so that at the end of the year the people of that country, whether private sector, public sector or taxpayers as a whole, will be able to see how the government is spending its money. Then corruption could be reduced and eventually eliminated.

There are many countries around the world that do not issue financial statements. As a result, nobody knows what those countries have in terms of revenues or expenditures. That is a major scandal internationally. It is one of the leading causes for a lot of the problems and economic troubles around the world.

There are some countries in Asia-Pacific that have not issued financial statements for the past seven years. Some countries have not had financial statements from their governments for the past 15 or 20 years. Others are working on 1991 financial statements. Those very same countries have gone through very difficult and troubling economic times.

Before one talks about reform of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, one really has to address the fundamental issue of transparency around the world when it comes to the proper reporting of governments with annual financial statements.

If it was up to me, frankly, I would synchronize and eliminate some of the organizations. I would fold them into the World Trade Organization so that we would have one economic power around the world that would govern. I would bring in the International Monetary Fund as a part of that economic organization. I would bring in the World Bank, the OECD, APEC, the G-8 and every other organization under the economic umbrella of the World Trade Organization. Once that was done, and it would take quite a bit of time, then I would talk about making the World Trade Organization a part of the United Nations. Then we would have a body that would govern both politically on the one hand and economically on the other.

Simply having a meeting to bring a bunch of politicians together, most of the time, is extremely counterproductive and will not give us the results we want.

I want to thank my hon. colleague for bringing this issue before the House because it has given us a chance to put our views on the record. It triggered a very interesting debate and I hope we will have a chance to further debate issues such as this in the future.

I would say that everything starts at home and I want to take this opportunity to commend the Department of Finance and the Government of Canada for being so proactive, not only here at the local level in Canada but at the international level, in bringing about reforms to international financial institutions and also in assisting countries to bring about transparency, economic development and prosperity for their people, for our people and for the world as a whole.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is my duty to inform this House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

[Some hon. members]

Shame.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Reform Of International Organizations

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very distressing to me to hear that the government is once again going to invoke closure or time allocation to limit our debate on another bill in the House. I find it abhorrent that this government continues this practice.

I am also sorry that the hon. member who last spoke has left because he reconfirmed something that I have thought for the last six years, that this government has no ability to walk and chew gum at the same time. He talked about fuzzing up the issue and bringing in too many things to consider at any one time. I would like to think that it is only the Liberals who do not have the ability to look at a much broader vision of how the world can work together and how Canada can participate in working with other countries to resolve some of the situations in which we find ourselves.

I would like to speak to private member's Motion No. 338 that my hon. colleague and seatmate, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, has submitted to the House. I do not feel that he is placing the government in a difficult position at all. All he is asking is that the government convene a meeting of like-minded nations to develop foreign policy, to develop a concept to prevent conflict around the world and to step in before it becomes war. When the signs are there that it is inevitable, the nations of the world could figure out how to determine what the signals are, what we should be looking for and then what our response to those signals should be.

I cannot understand how government members can see any reason for not supporting the motion. I do not understand it.

We have many world organizations—NATO, the United Nations, the IMF—which have the jurisdiction or the ability to talk to nations about various issues, to sit down and try to come to some resolution, but it is not working.

There are many reasons it is not working. We all have identified and even the organizations themselves have identified the need to reform these organizations. It would not hurt to have like-minded nations sit down to talk about how things could be changed and to reform the various institutions of which we are a part.

We have the situation now where NATO is in the former Yugoslavia. There are criticisms that NATO stepped in when it should not have, that it should have been the United Nations. However, the United Nations was not prepared to move. Even if it had moved, it is after the fact. Conflict has broken out. It should have looked at the evidence, at the situation and at the signals that this was going to happen and it should have stepped in many years ago to try to resolve the issues.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has written a number of papers on this issue. He has looked at it very deeply and has come up with a number of ways in which these issues could be sorted out and various responses that could be developed.

I want to share with the House some of the issues that he feels could be dealt with. He has listed a number of things which indicate that there could be difficulties which could lead to crises and he reports on the ways that we could respond to them. For example: to have diplomatic initiatives to diffuse the tensions between ethnic groups and encourage peacekeeping initiatives between these rival groups; to introduce positive information to counter the negative information that is being spread; to have an international arms registry that deals with specific arms, which would go a long way to adding a measure of transparency and accountability where there are military organizations.

The member feels that one of the most important ways is to bring in the international financial institutions, especially the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Why I would agree with my hon. colleague that these are important is because so often in world crisis situations the provinces with the wealth, the developed nations, are asked to enter into a conflict in terms of a military or peacekeeping venture, as we have seen with Kosovo, but when the conflict is over they are asked to be the primary supporters in the post-conflict restructuring.

I would suggest that perhaps through these international financial institutions we could have the ability to extend that lever or carrot to those nations that have conflict so perhaps they could find more peaceful resolutions and be rewarded with financial support for resolving those issues that are bringing this conflict to a head.

When countries enter a conflict and show a lack of response to their citizens by not recognizing the human rights of their citizens, those nations should be sanctioned by those international monetary organizations. They should not be funded for the building up of arms or for the setting up of governments that do not respect human rights.

I appreciate that our western civilization puts a lot of emphasis on individual rights and that the European tradition is perhaps not geared that way, that the European and Asian traditions are geared more to collective rights as opposed to individual rights. However, I think there is a respect worldwide for the need to recognize human rights. No nation, whether it believes in collective rights or individual rights, has the right to kill, to hold in captivity or to expel their minorities or their citizens who they have problems and difficulties with.

Even though there might be a different approach to individual or collective rights, as an international community we have to use the ability we have, either through foreign aid or loans through the International Monetary Fund, to reward those countries that are developing in a humane way and treating their citizens with respect and sanction those that are not. That is a powerful tool.

A meeting of like minds is all the motion is suggesting. It is suggesting that Canada initiate a meeting with nations that can start to collectively put their minds together on how to identify nations that are reaching a position of conflict or are getting into a situation that may go beyond what is considered to be acceptable behaviour or treatment. It is to get these nations to start thinking on how we can avoid such situations. It is to consider what kind of sanctions or methods we can use to intervene in those cases.

My colleague deserves a lot of credit for being far-reaching in his outlook on international affairs and for not being afraid to consider what others would think might be impossible. I would like to join my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley in saying that my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca chose once before to reach out on, what other people thought was impossible, the landmine issue. He showed them that it can work.

I would like to commend the member for those efforts with the landmine issue. I would like to commend him for making us think that something else that looks impossible might be possible if we put our minds together.

I hope the Liberals will see fit to support the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)