Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2002

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to interrupt but I have been generous and a number of other colleagues are waiting. I am sure hon. members will have the opportunity to share.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to comment on the Speech from the Throne.

I start by thanking the voters of my riding of Kitchener--Waterloo for affording me the privilege to represent them in the Parliament of Canada. I am sure all my colleagues in the House feel the same way regarding their respective constituencies.

This is the sixth and final throne speech under our present Prime Minister and represents for the most part our Liberal values and priorities.

Since taking office in 1993 we have eliminated the $43 billion annual deficit that we inherited and have produced five consecutive surplus budgets. The Liberals believe that people need a hand up, not a handout and that the best social policy is job creation.

During the Liberal mandate, unemployment has fallen from 11.2% in 1993 to 7.6% nationally now and from 9% in 1993 to 5.5% in my community. We have restored the fiscal sovereignty of Canada, protected our social safety net, strengthened the unity of the country, replaced despair with hope and for the most part governed well.

Much of the credit goes to our Prime Minister and the Liberal team, including our newest backbencher, the former minister of finance. I also recognize the valuable role played by my colleagues in the opposition who for the most part have held the government accountable and have proposed many useful suggestions. The alarm they are raising about the disability legislation is a good example of that. In fact, the contributions made by all members of the House have played an important part in the life of the nation of which we are all so very proud.

In terms of the safety and security of Canadians, I am very heartened by our government's reaffirmation of our commitment to work through the United Nations to ensure that the rule of international law is respected and enforced. Unilateral, bilateral, trilateral military action can only serve to undermine the coalition against terrorism we have worked so hard to build and will threaten to destabilize a volatile region of the world.

With respect to children and foreign aid, I am very pleased by our commitment to increase the national child benefit and our international development assistance, which reflects our great Canadian values of fairness and compassion. It is only right that we offer disadvantaged people the opportunity to break out of the cycle of poverty.

In terms of our first nations, I want to pay special tribute to Chief Buddy Recalma and members of his family in Qualicum, British Columbia, who sensitized me to the plight of the aboriginal people. I admire their tireless advocacy for accountability and transparency in first nations governance. I strongly support the promise to close the gap in life chances between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians through new health, skills development and education programs for youths. Legislation to strengthen first nations governance must be done in partnership with the first nations.

I support ratifying the Kyoto protocol. It is part of our commitment to leaving a clean, healthy, sustainable, natural environment as our legacy for our children and all future generations.

Health care is one of the most important priorities we have as a government. I look forward, as do all members of this House, to the report of the Romanow commission. I sincerely hope that it addresses the issues of national pharmacare and home care for our senior citizens. These are important services that were not mentioned in the throne speech.

Much has been said in this House over the years about brain drain. We have not talked enough about brain waste. I strongly urge that we extend to internationally trained Canadian physicians the commitment we made to work toward breaking down the barriers to recognize their credentials and those of potential immigrants.

It is ironic that our region of Waterloo needs approximately 40 more doctors to serve the nearly 50,000 people who are without family doctors. Even though these doctors have passed the Canadian Medical Association exams, they are still unable to practise here. This is a brain waste.

We have a shortage of doctors, nurses, medical technicians and other professionals due to the supposed brain drain. Therefore we can ill afford to waste the years of education and training of the experienced foreign trained physicians, engineers and architects living in our communities. This brain waste must end. Thousands of internationally trained Canadians must be given the opportunity to contribute their talents to our nation.

At 4:25 today I received an e-mail on a case that I have been following closely. It involves a physician trained in Yugoslavia who passed the medical exams given by the Canadian Medical Association over two years ago. He is still unable to secure an internship position which would allow him to practise medicine in this country. That must stop.

In the area of research and development, education and innovation, I am very pleased to learn that we will be increasing funding to the federal granting councils. The knowledge based economy is the economy of the future. My community of Kitchener--Waterloo is a perfect example of that economy.

My community is home to Conestoga College, Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Waterloo. These schools themselves have created tens of thousands of jobs in our region and Canada. The innovators that they have graduated have created new enterprises that have produced many well paying jobs. Communitech and Canada's Technology Triangle are two important representatives of these groups.

Their contribution is reflected in the changing face of industry in my riding. As product manufacturing companies like Labatt, Seagrams, Van Dresser and Ontario Trim have departed, high tech companies such as Research in Motion, GFI, IMS, Open Text and Dalsa have taken their place. We must position ourselves as world leaders and we must continue to invest in our young people and our future researchers.

One of our captains of industry, Mike Lazaridis, who was named the Canadian who made the greatest contribution to Canada in the past year by the Globe and Mail said, “Let us brand Canada as the wisest nation on the planet”.

With respect to the issue of citizenship, I am particularly pleased that the government has committed in the throne speech to reform our citizenship legislation to reassert the rights and reinforce the responsibilities that go with being Canadian.

The new Citizenship Act must reflect the fact that Canada has become a pluralistic multicultural country. There is no place for two classes of citizens. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives all citizens, whether they are Canadians by choice or by birth, the same rights and obligations. The flawed citizenship revocation process in the present Citizenship Act does not provide fundamental justice and confers second class status on six million naturalized Canadians.

I am pleased to note that the Liberal Party of British Columbia as well as the Liberal Party of Ontario have made it a priority resolution which is being sent to the national convention that the Citizenship Act incorporate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There are many more pieces of legislation being proposed in the throne speech, but I will touch on one more point. The government is considering the decriminalization of marijuana.

It is time to end the cynicism felt by many of our citizens across the country who have heard about Bill Clinton having smoked marijuana and Kim Campbell, our former Prime Minister, having smoked marijuana. George Bush smoked marijuana and other stuff. A number of cabinet ministers have admitted to smoking marijuana.

We must end the hypocrisy of saddling many young people with criminal records when the law should be changed. I commend the position taken by the Senate committee. In terms of our drug strategy, we have to work toward taking organized crime out of drugs. If we manage to do it, we will eliminate many victims and will create a stronger society.

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the promotion of marijuana here today. Medical people are saying tobacco smoke is so harmful, that perhaps the nicotine will not kill us but the carrier of the nicotine in the smoke is what damages us, so it really amazes me that at the same time more smoking that will result in all of the side effects that smoking tobacco causes is being advocated. I am really amazed that people on the government side are advocating what would be a habit that debilitates people's health.

I understand there are people such as cancer victims who use it for special purposes to relieve discomfort. I do not have an argument with people looking for comfort, but to encourage people by saying that smoking marijuana is harmless really is irresponsible in my mind.

I would like to hear the member's comments about how he can advocate smoking marijuana when the smoke itself is so harmful. It is a pollutant. It is a contaminant. We take it into our bodies and our bodies do not like it.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my friend missed the point I was trying to make. My point is very simple. The present drug strategy is not working. We should think back to the time of prohibition in the United States. What we have is a great boost in organized crime by making trafficking in drugs a profitable enterprise for organized crime.

The chiefs of police are in favour of decriminalization. The least thing I am doing is advocating the use of marijuana. What I am saying is the strategy we have followed has not worked and there are better strategies to deal with it. The tremendous amount of resources that have been spent on a failed drug strategy could be much better used through education to cut down on the use of drugs in this country.

It is a social problem and the criminal solutions have not worked. All they have done is fed the coffers of organized crime. It is time to get our heads around it. There are many victims in Canada who are victims of crimes driven by drugs. What drives those crimes is that too many people have become addicted because it has been promoted by organized crime. That is what we have to put a stop to.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for his response to the Speech from the Throne. I know that over the years he has certainly supported the theme of equal citizenship and equal rights for all Canadians regardless of whether they were born in this country or immigrated to this country.

While the throne speech addressed that vacuum and I understand the government will be tabling a new citizenship bill later on in the session, does the member think that his government will make those right changes for all Canadians?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that question because he certainly has been supportive in trying to ensure that six million Canadians who are citizens by choice and not by birth have the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it comes to defending their citizenship. Many members on the other side of the House supported me in that battle but unfortunately the members on my side of the House did not.

As I mentioned in my speech, both the Liberal Party of British Columbia as well as the Liberal Party of Ontario have passed resolutions that are going to the national policy convention to get the legislation changed. There is an awareness across the country that was not there before. I suspect the government will make the right move in restoring or giving rights to Canadians who as I said are citizens by choice and not by birth.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Crowfoot.

I am thankful for the opportunity to respond to Monday's throne speech. I look forward to critique the government's throne speech and what we might expect in terms of the budget, which may set out some plans on how to finance it down the road.

There have been several throne speeches since my arrival in 1993. We have had three in the last three years. The Liberals came to power in 1993 and the tag team of the Prime Minister and the former finance minister have made promises, but nothing new has been created. I want to examine some of those things to tell Canadians that we are on the same page on many of the issues that we were in 1993 when the current government came to power.

The number one thing to address is the idea of fixing the health care system, which again was in the throne speech. In 1993 it was the National Forum on Health. That was the big agenda to fix the health care system. Now we have the Romanow commission in 2002. What has actually happened in the past decade under the Liberal government?

A decline in our health care system with Canadians waiting longer and longer for service. The old Soviet Union had a universal system, but people had to wait five years or longer for service. What kind of a universal system is that? I suggest that ours is running in the same kind of category. It is slipping very badly.

Canadians are waiting longer and longer for service. Why is that? We have provincial governments using 50% of their budgets to pay for health care as the federal government pays less and less. A promise back in the early 1970s from the Liberal government of the day, when health care was put in, was that the federal government would not pay less than 50% of health care in Canada. Now it has slipped to an average of 14% and it still thinks it can dictate how health care operates in Canada and what the best solution is. There has to be a more innovative way to do that.

It is the same Liberal government that slashed over $25 billion in transfers to the provinces in the last five years. It is finally getting up to about the same amount in social transfers that it had cut out in the current year, but there is that huge gap of $25 billion that is missing out of the system that has cost the provinces dearly and cost the Canadian health care system.

What about the promise of building a world leading economy? We see that in the Speech from the Throne. “Seize the opportunity” are the buzz words again. That is what they were in 1993. I looked back at the red book and it was exactly the same slogan. Nothing much has changed and perhaps it is for a good reason, because nothing much has changed. If it has changed at all, it has changed for the worse.

Let us look at what has happened to Canada's standard of living under the Liberal administration of the past 10 years. There has been a 70% decline to that of our major competitor, our neighbour across the border, the United States. It is a 30-year decline and it has accelerated in the last 10 years under this administration. We are slipping badly. Our productivity has slipped from 2nd place in 1980 to 13th place. The United States still remains in first place. Why is that? It is government and government policies that have made the difference.

Canadian workers are not any less productive, but when government takes a bigger take out of society it has to show up some place. It shows up in a decline in direct foreign investment in Canada. We have had a 30-year decline in direct foreign investment as a percentage of investment by others around the world.

Our factories are hurt. They have trouble ordering machinery and equipment because people do not want to invest here. They do not see the right climate to get the kind of rate of return that they need.

Conversely, we have seen an increase in Canadians investing outside of our country as they seek opportunity for growth and a reasonable return on investment. A sea change has taken place. Canadian investment in other countries has now surpassed the amount of direct foreign investment by foreigners in Canada. That happened about four years ago and the gap is widening all the time.

What else have we seen? We have seen a continuation in the decline of the Canadian dollar as we become the discount wholesaler of the world. We are in the range of 62¢ or 63¢, but it has been a long-term decline. Some people say that is great for our exports. If it is so great for our exports, why do we not make it 50¢? It does not make sense. We do not get the kind of investment we need.

We have seen an increase in our young professionals seeking better opportunities outside of Canada. Almost every family that I talk to has somebody who has decided to move to the United States, even a nephew of mine. They are looking for better opportunities. They do not take that choice lightly. They take it because they are driven to it. They have family and relatives at home. It makes it difficult to come back. When they make that choice, it is because things are not as good as they should be in Canada.

We have seen a decline in agriculturalists. Canadian farmers are left to fight international subsidies on their own. The United States and Europe are in this huge subsidy war, whereas Canada is recycling and regurgitating the same $600 million from year to year, calling it new money, and our farmers are left stranded.

What about our taxes? They are some of the highest in the world. As a percentage our personal income taxes are the highest in the OECD. That is some kind of record to have.

I want to deal for a moment with our security. It has become a big issue in the last year, after the United States was hit by terrorists. Most important, we have seen a systematic gutting of our military and our military capability through cuts to their budgets by the government. There is no will on the side of the Liberal government to do anything to reinstate that. It was not even mentioned in the throne speech.

What about the throne speech 2002? It is no wonder people are so cynical when the tired, old Liberal government comes along with another 58 new or recycled promises. Out of the 58, half of them were recycled promises. There is no mention how the government intends to pay for all these new promises. Let us look at a few of them.

There is the implementation of the Kyoto accord. The cost varies. I have seen the government's own estimates saying it will cost Canadians $20 billion. Manufacturers associations and a lot of industry are saying it is more like $45 billion. The government's number for loss of jobs was 200,000 jobs a year. Industry people are saying 450,000 lost jobs. It is a huge problem and it has to be paid for somewhere along the way by Canadians. There is no reasonable plan put forward as to how the government will accomplish that and what it would do to the economy.

Another item is infrastructure for the cities. The programs we have seen in the past run about $2 billion. It will not be any less than that. However, what about the move into interprovincial jurisdiction that we see by the federal government? If the federal government would back off on its spending and leave some tax room for the provinces they could resume their rightful role in infrastructure and dealing with the municipalities. The Constitutions says that municipalities fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Therefore another move outside the government's area.

Health care is another issue. We do not know what the cost will be but we know what the government's record has been.

There are aboriginal programs. It has been roughly $7 billion a year so far. The government will increase that spending. It is the one item that has gone up every budget since I have been here.

There is a proposal to increase the child tax benefit. It is already $7 billion. It will go up to $9 billion in the next two years. Where it goes from there I am not sure.

Let us look at the history of what the government would do in cutting programs to finance these promises, because they have to be financed somehow. If the past practice continues, spending will increase at a rapid pace.

The budget was balanced about five years ago no thanks to the Liberal government. Growth in the economy here and in the United States accomplished that as did the slash in transfers to the provinces, essentially balancing the books on the backs of the provinces. Since that time, spending by the Liberal government has been rising at over 5% a year in the past three years: 7% in 2000; 10% in 2001; and so far this year it is up 7%. Responsible spenders? I do not think so. It is over twice the target inflation rate set by the Bank of Canada.

Now the Prime Minister's swan song social agenda in Monday's throne speech. Is it responsible? I do not think it is responsible at all. Twice the rate that the bank has set out for inflationary spending. It is clear Canadians need to hang onto their wallets over the next couple of years. The Liberals are on another spending spree. It reminds me of what happened in the 1970s.

Canadians will be waiting. With over 100 Liberal MPs supporting the former finance minister, will he control the Prime Minister's spending initiatives or will he not? Do not bet on it. The member for LaSalle—Émard and the member for Saint-Maurice are cut from the same cloth. The last 10 years are living proof.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question similar to this earlier but because of time restraints I was not able to get an answer.

Farmers in western Canada face a tough situation. They got their crop off this fall or are in the middle of getting it off. Prices have gone up. American producers and some of the farm organizations have begun to launch another trade action against Canadian farmers.

We will see toward the end of this week a decision as to whether that trade action can go to the ITC or not. Within the next month the ITC will be able to make a decision as to whether to put tariffs and restrictions on Canadian wheat. Those restrictions could go up between 35% to 40% which would basically shut down any Canadian exports into the United States. We have also seen how the government was totally unprepared to deal with the softwood lumber issue.

Would my colleague have any advice for the government as it seems to be unprepared and unwilling to deal with this issue in terms of agriculture as well? It looks like we will have an other trade failure on our hands. I would be interested to hear my colleague's position on that.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that important question.

Farmers are struggling greatly. My view is that they have not had a lot of support from the government. This party believes that we need to have aggressive action on the trade front by going to the World Trade Organization and supporting initiatives that will bring down the subsidies, especially the export subsidies.

The Liberal government tends to go there with a position where it is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. It is difficult to ask for trade access for our products subsidy free and not subject to tariff when we are insisting on the same thing for products coming into Canada in areas of the agriculture sector ourselves.

In the meantime our party has put forward the idea that we should have a trade distortion package available to help our farmers through this difficult time until those reforms can be made. It has not been forthcoming from the government. It should be instated because Canadian farmers are good farmers and they can compete head to head based on production, but they certainly cannot compete with European and United States subsidies which has left Canadian farmers in a difficult position.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member read the throne speech. On page 5, in the second paragraph it talks about the fact that the government will modify existing programs to ensure that Canadians can provide compassionate care for the gravely ill or dying child without putting their jobs or incomes at risk.

It basically means that if people care for an individual who is in a palliative care situation or in a severe rehabilitation situation that they would be able to leave their place of work and receive some form of income most likely through the employment insurance program to care for their loved one and give their dying relative a sense of dignity before they pass on. It is exactly the same type of language that we have in a private member's bill which we have introduced in the House now for the third time.

Does the hon. member and his party support this type of initiative to assist the thousands of family caregivers in the care of their loved ones?

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. It ties into the whole question of what the government is doing with the disability tax credit and how it has narrowed the definition for people who are disabled to be able to have a tax credit and to recognize that there is a problem for them to earn a living. There is more than one way to do this. The member has identified one way through the EI program. I am not sure that is the best way.

It seems to me that we have a government that is beating the bush trying to get every cent it can from people, even if that means knocking the disability tax credit from under Canadians to raise money for the Prime Minister's legacy. This seems to be the program that it is intent on following, raising more and more money.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and participate in the reply to the throne speech.

The first speech that I gave in the House was in February 2001 in response to the throne speech at that time which followed the 2000 election. Since that time I have delivered many other speeches on a diverse number of issues. However I will always remember that first maiden speech, and it is a pleasure to stand again and respond to this Speech from the Throne.

Like so many speakers before me, I would like to comment on what can only be classified as misnomers within the throne speech, beginning with the line in the throne speech that says:

The government will continue to work with its allies to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.

This line is preceded by another line which makes mention of the events of September 11. One can only surmise then that the government is referring to Canada doing its part to assist the world with the war on terrorism. My question is: How can Canada be of any assistance or do its part on the war on terrorism when we do not have the resources, the capability or the political will that is required to sustain a battle of the magnitude needed to bring down individuals and regimes like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Tamil tigers?

Our security and intelligence agencies have been financially starved for so long that the RCMP and CSIS do not have the resources to investigate or apprehend criminals operating in this country let alone assist other nations in determining who may be operating abroad.

Long before the attack on America, the Canadian Alliance had been demanding that the Liberal government beef up resources with a significant cash infusion that would allow the RCMP and CSIS to train and hire the desperately needed officers and skilled analysts that CSIS in particular had asked for and who were out there to combat terrorism and organized crime. However those demands have never been met.

We also demanded that the government allow for the listing of terrorist groups. Although it finally did concede to this request, what it finally offered was much too little and much too late.

This past July, some seven months after Bill C-36 received royal assent, the Solicitor General provided a list of entities deemed illegal terrorist organizations. How many were on the list? The Americans and the British had over 50 on their lists. Canada came up with seven. It is absolutely unbelievable and appalling that it took the Liberal government that long to determine and make public the fact that groups like al-Qaeda were in fact terrorist organizations. There are dozens of terrorist organizations and groups knowingly operating around the world. It is an absolute disgrace that the government has seen fit to list seven of those groups pursuant to the Anti-terrorism Act.

Is the Tamil tigers of Sri Lanka who have perpetrated more suicide bombings than all other terrorist groups combined listed? No it is not. Are Hamas and Islamic Jihad that are responsible for the slaughter of hundreds in Israel listed? No they are not. What about Hezbollah whose deadly attacks include the 1983 murder of 241 United States marines in Beirut? Was it listed? No it was not.

On July 25, in regard to the Solicitor General's listed entities of terrorists the National Post wrote, “For refusing to declare that the slaughter of Israel's Jews and Sri Lanka's Buddhists is true terrorism, this federal government should hang its head in shame”.

Because of this government's failure to effectively recognize and fight the evils of terrorism, the Wall Street Journal this week concluded that our Prime Minister was soft on terrorism and “he has a misplaced pity for terrorists”.

The fact is this. The Liberal government has a misplaced pity for criminals in general and that is why it failed to tighten laws against possession of child pornography and establish the national sex offender registry which until today we have been left in limbo over.

In the throne speech the government promises to reform the Criminal Code, to increase penalties for abuse and neglect of children. This quite obviously is a misnomer given the justice minister's reluctance to pass an outright ban on child pornography altogether. The sexual exploitation of children is one of the most sadistic abuses of children and yet the government has failed to effectively put a stop to it. My response to that is, if the government cannot handle the job, then get out of the way and let someone in who can handle it.

There just is not enough time today to adequately address all the misnomers of the throne speech and attempt by the government to pave some type of direction. The direction that the government is going is sad and Canadians are disappointed with it.

However before closing I must point out what is by far the most controversial issue of concern to the people in my riding and to the people and the Province of Alberta, and that is the government's intention to ratify the Kyoto accord.

In mid-October I wrote the Alberta Premier Klein to encourage him to continue opposing Kyoto and to acknowledge his decisive victory at the 43rd annual premiers conference in receiving unanimous provincial support for a first ministers conference on the Kyoto accord. Mr. Klein has stood firm in his belief that there should not be a quick ratification of the accord as there must be further scientific review and research. More evidence needs to be put forward as to the effects of the Kyoto accord.

The Alberta premier has in the opinion of the Canadian Alliance spoken not only on behalf of Albertans but of all Canadians inasmuch as if our economy fails, which it inevitable will with the Kyoto accord, there will be a huge ripple effect that will be felt all across the country.

I firmly believe, as do so many of my constituents, that the Kyoto timeline to cut emissions is too short. It will kill jobs, seriously weaken our economy and undermine our competitive advantage in relationship to our chief competitor in that industry, the United States.

As the government's resolve to ratify the accord is intensified, as demonstrated by the Speech from the Throne, our resolve to fight the ratification is increased because, while Alberta cannot afford to lose thousands of jobs and some $8 billion in the economy or in investments, Canada cannot withstand such economic devastation. We fully support reducing greenhouse gases but we do not support the Kyoto accord.

When the throne speech was delivered, I sat and listened for other issues that would touch and speak to my constituency of Crowfoot. In the worst drought in 133 years on record, covering 80% of our province and much of Saskatchewan, I was waiting to hear what the government was willing to bring forward in regard to help for agriculture and to the agricultural sector. I waited and the Liberals did not respond to the concerns of agriculture. There was one short sentence that was the same old agricultural philosophy rehashed time after time leaving the farming sector with not much hope.

The government has no new plan. It is dependent on old 1993 promises of the red book that it still has not fulfilled. It is not looking forward to the future of the country; it is looking back. What the government is leaving is not much hope in the way of the future. It is a government that is dealing with agriculture that is much like the rabbit in the headlight syndrome, not knowing which way to turn.

When we talk about the concerns and frustrations in the agricultural sector, we do not have the strong representation of a cabinet minister around a cabinet table fighting for the concerns of agriculture out west. He is absent. He has no plan or action. The minister has no assistance, and it is leaving Alberta farmers with little or no hope.

I encourage the federal government to look much beyond the throne speech because it is too full of holes, to look beyond to issues and legislation that will help the economy, not push Alberta and the gas and oil industry back into the dark ages but bring it forward. The throne speech fails to do so.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, October 2, the House will now resume consideration of government business Motion No. 1.

The House resumed from October 2 consideration of the motion.

Iraq

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that it might not be necessary for me to speak on the debate on Iraq. I thought everything would have been said long before it reached me, but I find in listening to some of the hon. members from across the way that there are things that need to be said and things that need to be cleared up. Given the incredible diversion of opinion on this, I would like to have my opinion on record. It is an opinion I have come to after considerable reading of material and consideration of all the aspects of this.

In the course of debate one thing we have heard from the government side was a very ill-conceived comment from a now contrite, I hope, Liberal member of Parliament who used the comparison of George Bush to Adolf Hitler and suggested that what he proposed to do is no better than what Adolf Hitler did. I would like to use the Hitler analogy, because it is appropriate, not in the manner in which the hon. member used it, but certainly it is appropriate.

In World War II, after the concern about Nazi Germany and the movement for eventual world domination that it was embarking on, Canada went to war in support in support of its British allies. That is what a country does with its allies when they have a problem and need help.

When Canada went to war, the United States did not. The United States provided a lot of supplies. It provided a lot of equipment such as aircraft. In fact, a lot of airfields we use in the country today are a result of the aircraft flown from the point of manufacture in the United States into Canada to then be ferried over to Britain by Canadian airmen.

Notwithstanding what the hon. member across the way said in making that comparison, ironically the United States at that time was criticized for its delay in entering that war. Ultimately, the United States did enter the war. Had it not, Hitler very well may have prevailed in World War II, certainly with Europe and possibly with Britain. Had he prevailed there, the atomic bombs that were dropped later during the segment of World War II, when the United States was fighting with Japan, may well have been dropped, but not by the United States but rather by Germany on such targets as New York City, Washington, D.C. and perhaps even Ottawa and other Canadian cities.

The hon. member raised a point and got it completely wrong. Frankly, listening to some of the rhetoric that has come from the other side, I am not really totally surprised.

To determine the best course of action in Iraq, it is first necessary to review certain indisputable facts and I emphasize that word indisputable.

We know absolutely without dispute that Iraq at one point had both chemical and biological weapons and the capability of manufacturing them. Even the most avid opponent of any action against Iraq from the other side would have to admit that is an indisputable fact. Iraq had the weapons and the capability to make them.

We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein is willing to use such weapons given that he has already used them in the past against Iran and against his own people in northern Iraq. Therefore, neither is that fact in dispute.

We also know, again as an absolute indisputable fact, that he was in the process of building facilities to construct nuclear weapons at the time of the gulf war when Iraq invaded Kuwait. During the gulf war, the United Nations requirement for a ceasefire against Iraq was the elimination of all their weapons of mass destruction as well as the facilities that would provide him the ability to manufacture new ones and full and open unimpeded weapons and facility inspections.

I want to emphasize that it was a ceasefire. It was not the end of the gulf war; it was a ceasefire. That means the war never ended. The United Nations agreed with the coalition that there would be a ceasefire against Iraq in return for Iraq meeting certain conditions imposed by the United Nations. Although Iraq initially agreed to this condition, with extreme reluctance, it has since done everything possible to impede inspections, up to and including banning inspectors from the country.

For the reasons I have already outlined, it is imperative that full and unimpeded inspections be carried out. Hussein has blocked the re-implementation of UN inspections until very recently. It should be noted that the only reason he finally agreed, and I will stand behind this fact, was to prevent what appeared to be the impending action of the United States, an action generally supported by several other countries, including Iraq's own Saudi neighbours.

Now the question becomes, should these inspections be forced upon Iraq? The best answer comes from a representative of Saudi Arabia who urged Hussein to accept and allow the inspections. He advised that if Hussein had nothing to hide, he should allow the UN inspectors to come in and prove his compliance with the requirement to destroy all weapons of mass destruction and the ability to manufacture them. He pointed out that if the inspections were to take place and the UN resolution were complied with, it would set up a likelihood of removal of UN trade sanctions.

Many people in my riding have contacted me to say that they would like these sanctions lifted. They feel that the sanctions have caused great humanitarian harm to the people of Iraq. I do not doubt for a moment that they do, but we are in a Catch-22. If we allow open trade, Hussein will then use that as an opportunity to fund and construct new facilities for the manufacture of these weapons.

In the absence of Hussein's cooperation, it is not at all unreasonable to assume that he has something to hide. Otherwise, why not go along with what his own Saudi neighbours have suggested and prove to the world that he indeed does not have weapons of mass destruction or the capability of manufacturing them?

If this inspection is to be complete, it cannot be for just a few areas or areas accepted by Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi authorities. It has to be for all facilities and that includes the presidential palaces. Some people may have the idea that the presidential palaces are areas that contain very fancy homes or something similar to a castle in England and the grounds surrounding it. These are massive complexes on vast tracts of land. They are more than adequate for hiding not only the weapons themselves but even the facilities to build them. They have to be on the table as well.

The final question deals with the U.S. request that the UN pass a resolution outlining specific consequences if Iraq does not live up to the latest agreement to allow weapons inspectors back in, with unimpeded access to all sites. I agree that this resolution has to be passed given Hussein's past record of broken promises, including 16 individual violations of United Nations resolutions.

A reasonable person will never go to war when it can be avoided. Likewise, a reasonable person should never turn his or her back when the safety of millions of people in a region is put at risk by a man who has in the past demonstrated both the will and capacity to use weapons of mass destruction. Neither should a reasonable country.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am unusually qualified in one aspect, among members of Parliament in this chamber, to speak on this issue. I wrote a definitive book on the history of chemical and biological warfare in the late 1980s, which is still, I believe, highly regarded. It dealt with Canada's role in developing, basically, biological weapons. Anthrax, botulinus toxin and tularemia, these agents of biological warfare, were first invented here in Canada. Many of the methods of deploying them were first researched during the second world war here in Canada. Indeed, it is not well known among Canadians but anthrax mass production first began in the world at Grosse Ile, an island in the St. Lawrence, in 1943. Canada has long ago been very active in the field of developing weapons, particularly weapons pertaining to biological warfare, so in this debate I come with some knowledge.

I will begin by saying that I am pretty certain that we can trust the Americans to say that there is a genuine threat. I believe Mr. Bush when he says that Iraq possesses weapons that are near to deployment and are a danger. However, I have to question, in the context of my experience and my understanding of these weapons, because the principal use of these weapons has not changed in 50 years, how they are deployed, how they can be used, how effective they are. Whether it is poison gas or biological agents, nothing has really changed in how they can be employed.

One of the problems in the debate has been the use of the term weapons of mass destruction. Certainly an atomic bomb or a hydrogen bomb is a weapon of mass destruction, but chemical weapons and biological weapons are more correctly characterized as unconventional weapons. They have two basic uses. They can be used on a small-scale terrorist attack, the distribution of an infectious agent, for example, in some civilian populated target. Or, when properly loaded in some type of hardware, they can be used for much broader dispersal, say, over a city. The important thing to bear in mind is that whether it is chemical or biological, if it is going to be used as a weapon of mass attack, it has to have a lot of hardware associated with it in order to deliver it to its target.

When I hear Mr. Bush talk about the threat, I have had to ask myself in that context what kind of threat must it be, because the reality is that if it is a threat of terrorist attack of small quantities of an infectious agent or that kind of thing or the release of a vial of nerve gas in some civilian target in the United States, that threat has existed for the last 50 years. Indeed, since September 11 the public has been very aware of the threat. They have been conscious of it because the first time, to my knowledge, that anthrax has ever been used was post-September 11, although I note that it was used by a domestic American terrorist. I cannot understand the threat in that context because in fact even when one sends weapons inspectors into a country like Iraq one cannot possibly track down the small quantities of these agents that are so deadly and are so portable. I would suggest that there is probably just as much of this agent in unlawful hands in Pakistan as there is under the regime of Saddam Hussein. So what is the problem?

I can only conclude that what the Americans have noticed, are aware of, is that Iraq is developing hardware to deliver unconventional weaponry, unconventional arms, unconventional agents, to area targets. In other words, perhaps through espionage or satellite surveillance or one thing or another, the United States has become conscious of the fact that there is the production of missiles or some other means by which the Iraqis could deliver a biological or chemical agent to some area target.

I do not think that the threat can possibly be, at this stage, to the continental United States, except in the context of terrorism. As I said earlier, that terrorist context could apply to terrorists in Pakistan or in North Korea. It could be anywhere in the world, even in the United States. Attacking Iraq in order to stop this problem is not going to work.

Indeed, I would suggest that one of the reasons why there has not been a terrorist attack using a biological or chemical agent on civilian targets, particularly in the United States, is the fact that there would be moral outrage not only in all the world over such an attack but there would be moral outrage in whatever religious community is associated with the attack. If it were al-Qaeda, then I would suggest that all of Islam would be universal in its condemnation of such an attack. That is why I do not think that type of terrorist attack has either occurred or is likely to occur.

However, it does seem to me that given that situation there probably is the real threat that Saddam Hussein has developed the capability of using a biological agent or a chemical agent against Israel. I would suggest that what is unsaid in this debate and the debate we hear out of the United States is that the real fear is that the real target is Israel.

Indeed, during the gulf war and before I became a politician I was an expert commentator on television on the issue of what would happen if the Scud missiles that were landing in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv were charged with poison gas. I would explain to the best of my knowledge from reading the literature, most of it open literature I should say, on the probable effects. They are horrible. If one has a sufficient number of missiles, and not a lot are required, and particularly if biological agents are used, a lot of people can be killed.

I do not think Mr. Hussein has the capability of striking the United States, but he probably has the capability of striking Israel. I suggest it is this that prompts the United States to want to dismantle the arms that may be introduced in Iraq. I point out also that the weapons inspectors will never be able to determine or locate small quantities of agent. Enough botulinus toxin to kill all the people in Ottawa can be stored in a quart jar and enough infectious agent to kill a lot of people can be stored in a vessel the size of a thimble. So I do not think it is that. I think Mr. Bush feels that he has to disarm the weaponry that may be aimed at Israel. I think that is a laudable aim.

However, there is a problem: the suggestion that the United States might take this action unilaterally. My great fear is if it is done unilaterally without the sanction of the United Nations, which gives it a certain amount of moral authority, if the Americans were to actually do this, whatever their good intentions for Israel, to do it unilaterally would be seen as aggression throughout the Muslim world and much of the other world besides. What I fear is that it would give moral authority to the terrorists to retaliate with unconventional weapons, biological or chemical, on civilian targets elsewhere in the world.

I do not think we have a problem now. I do not think they would have the moral authority that they would even dare to do such a thing. However, if they felt bolstered by what they could say would be unwarranted, improper aggression, a crusade against Islam or anything like that, then they might be tempted to use the weapons in a terrorist context.

So whatever happens, I think it has to be done in the context of the United Nations.

I support my government entirely and I hope that the American government is listening, because I think our government is giving extremely good advice. It is a genuine threat that is occurring in Iraq. I think it is a threat against Israel, but we must not do anything that sets fire to the world, that unleashes the use of weapons that so far, with only very few instances, have not been seen in the world.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of comments I would like to make that are troubling to me from what I heard from the gentleman.

He said he was not certain that they have the capability to attack the United States. Those were the words he used. Prior to September 11, I believe that everybody on this side of the world believed that no one had the capability of any kind of attack, but remember September 11. They thought it could not happen. The member said that they do not have the capability to attack the U.S. I am suggesting to him that we do not know that.

The member talked about other leaders or other countries that may have certain weapons of this nature. I wonder if he could name any leaders of any of these other countries. It was already illustrated in Iran that he will use this stuff to destroy. He used it on his own people and destroyed thousands and thousands of people. He cut off the heads of those who objected to him, displaying them in public as if to say “Do not dare speak out against me”. He has even attacked members of his own family. Does the member not understand the seriousness and the threat of this individual?

Winston Churchill understood the threat of Adolf Hitler long before the people did. Winston Churchill was called a crazy man, yet he was right. I wonder if the member understands that when I travelled through parts of the western states and talked to a lot of Americans from all over that area, having come from there and knowing them very well, all they care about is making absolutely certain there is never another occurrence of that kind of attack or any other future attacks on innocent people in that country ever again.

It is not the Iraqi people they are displeased with; it is Saddam Hussein. He must be stopped. If a Security Council resolution is not accepted by Saddam Hussein, if the conditions are going to be laid out his way, whose side is he on, Iraq's or the coalition's?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not have been very eloquent in my speech because just to clarify, I support acting on a UN resolution.

When I said that Iraq does not have the capability of delivering weapons of mass destruction to the continental United States, I made the point that not only Iraq but just about every terrorist organization in the world has the capability of delivering to the United States and to any major city in the world a biological or chemical terrorist attack. The point, the whole point of my speech, Mr. Speaker, is that the reason why these attacks have not occurred so far--and there are terrorists all around the world, not just Islamic terrorists--there have been other terrorist groups that have been caught by our own security services carrying this type of unconventional weapon, a biological weapon or a chemical weapon.

The problem is that if there is a unilateral attack on Iraq, what it will give is moral authority, moral legitimacy in the eyes of the fundamentalists, the crazy lunatics of one particular religion or another, to use these unconventional weapons. If we are going to try to disarm the capability of Saddam Hussein of attacking Israel with missiles charged with poison gas or biological agents, we must do it under the moral authority of the United Nations, otherwise it will be perceived as an act of aggression. If it is perceived as an act of aggression, Mr. Speaker, than what we do is exactly equivalent to what is happening in Israel now with the suicide bombings.

The more we attempt to argue our point by aggressive acts outside of the legal conventions that the world recognizes, the more we legitimize illegal or immoral responses. I cannot think of anything more immoral than a suicide attack involving young kids.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate.

I will preface my remarks by saying that there are certainly many of us in the House who were here, you and I included, Mr. Speaker, in 1991 when the gulf war transpired. The member who just spoke said that in fact he was not here, but he was giving expert commentary on it. He said that he was unusually qualified to address this debate. That could be, I suppose. I do not know if any of us ever is unusually qualified to do anything actually, but I appreciate his interpretation and estimation of himself.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I think back to when you and I and several others were here when that war broke out in 1991. I remember the feeling, and I am sure you do too, Mr. Speaker, of thinking we really were at war. It was a powerful, frightening, unnerving time for all of us for sure, but here we are this many years later.

I understand that war was to liberate Kuwait and the upshot of it possibly was to bring to its knees the tyranny in Iraq and the Saddam Hussein regime. I think about how many years have transpired since then.

Even though the member talked about how these weapons of mass destruction or unconventional weapons have been available for 50 years, there are all kinds of things that have been available for 50 years. We see how things have escalated in the world. We have seen how available things are with the computer age, with the advent of CNN.

Again I am reminded of September 11 where we watched everything live. We seem to watch everything live these days. I think that maybe escalates the emotion of it certainly, but it also escalates the thrill of those who use these kinds of tactics on their own people and on other countries as well.

To say there may be small amounts in a quart jar is one thing, but when he talked about the moral authority of the United Nations and the resolutions that it is coming forward with, I agree with him. There certainly should be moral authority on that.

If I had had a chance to ask the member about the number of UN resolutions that seem to be totally ignored by Hussein, we could list off a number of them. Many people have done that in the debate so far. It is one thing to say we are not sure it is a big deal. That is one end of the spectrum. Of course the other end is that we would all go hysterical and think that this is something we need to act on tomorrow afternoon. Somewhere in the middle probably lies the truth and somewhere in the middle lies reasonable concern and assumption.

As we look at that just in terms of an overview, we need to make sure that we are acting wisely, that we are acting responsibly and that we are acting consistently. I am sad to say that I think our Prime Minister has acted inconsistently in terms of comments that he made during the gulf war in 1991. That obviously causes some concern. However, with the things that have happened just even in the last few weeks, I am not sure anyone in the world, let alone George W. Bush, would understand just exactly what Canada's position is.

If we have a plan ahead of time and we follow it through wisely and consistently, it seems to me the world ought to know what it is. If we in Canada, regardless of our political stripe, went to coffee shops and talked to people, who vote for all political parties, we would find people who would support each of the parties. I do not know that any one of them would be able to say what is Canada's stand, those who voted Liberal, Alliance or any other party. I am not sure that any Canadian would be able to articulate what Canada's plan and stance is on this issue.

After listening to the debate carefully and looking at Hansard one would wonder on the government side what in the world it is in terms of the inflammatory remarks that have come forward, and I am not sure that people really would know or articulate the plan. I have watched this.

I have watched the Prime Minister for many years and I am not certain what the plan is over there either, and I spend a whole lot more time paying attention to this than many other people who are busy with their lives and raising kids, et cetera.

Of course we should take safety and appreciation for that umbrella group, but when so many of those UN resolutions have been violated, paid no attention to, ignored, it certainly does cause us some concern. The United States has accused Iraq of the following charges and I would invite anyone to say true or false to them.

Violating the UN Security Council resolutions by refusing to fully disclose its activities regarding the acquisitions. I think we would have to answer true to that. I think Iraq has violated those Security Council resolutions.

Refusing to cooperate with the UN special commission and allow full inspections of sites where materials related to such weapons programs may be held. Again, I would question the member. Even if it is a quart jar it could do a whole pile of damage. If a person were clean and innocent he would not care who came in. If people are not messing around on their income taxes, they should not care when the auditors show up at their door. They should just say, “Come on in, I am clean, I am innocent, I have a clean conscience. Come on in and check it out”.

If Saddam Hussein sent that signal saying to come on over, I think people would breathe a whole lot more easily. Yet we see that there is that hesitation, that someone could come in and say “Sure you can look around, but only here”. I think the answer is true for refusing to cooperate with the UN special commission.

Iraq supports international terrorist groups operating against the United States, Israel and western interests. I think there is some of that so I think the answer to that would have to be true as well.

When we see the UN resolutions and some of the things that Saddam Hussein and his regime are refusing to comply with, obviously we need to be concerned.

As I mentioned earlier about the frustration I had with some of the things that have gone forward in the debate here, it astounds me and has for a long time, for 30 years give or take of Liberal dominance in this country, or 100 years of Liberal dominance throughout the world, that people think it is perfectly safe to just tuck themselves into the government benches and then just bash the daylights out of the Americans. One only needs to study Hansard . Members should not take my word for it but should look at Hansard and see some of the unbelievable comments.

There are extremist, inflammatory comments about George Bush wanting to go to war immediately and that this is going to happen. That just raises the emotion and the lack of logic of this debate. So when government members are thinking it is just fine to poke a great big stick in the eye of our next door neighbours, who will we go to when we need help?

There is a lack of trust on both sides of the border due to softwood lumber, airline tariffs and the list could go on. Yet when we need them, the Americans are our big cousin. It is almost like the Prime Minister would have to go cap in hand to Washington and say, “Never mind, we did not really mean all that”, yet it is easy to turn around. We saw that in the last U.S. election where the nephew of the Prime Minister said, “Well, I do not know who I would vote for”. It is not our responsibility to get into that whole area of bashing the Americans. It just amazes me when I think that this is acceptable behaviour for government members and in fact the Prime Minister himself. Study Hansard .

[An hon. member]

Don't cheapen the subject.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Talk about cheapening the subject, how important it is to be able to say that our military knows exactly what it is that it needs to do. I stood on the street in Edmonton welcoming our troops home. What an unbelievable job they are doing.

They are hopelessly underfunded. They are hopelessly underequipped. Then I see someone like the Minister of National Defence who said yesterday or the day before that everything is great, that we can send all kinds of people and troops over there. That is not true. Listen to the military experts.

A spokesman for the Department of National Defence said the anti-terrorism operation has cost $191 million already. It is supposed to cost $205 million for the current fiscal year.

We are not capable of putting troops on the ground over there. The government needs to have a plan. The Prime Minister talked about having the people and the plan. He has neither.

I wish to congratulate our military who has fulfilled the government's requests. However when I look ahead, the government needs to have a plan and the people in place to say what our commitments will be. It simply has not done that.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I think everyone who comes to the House is uniquely qualified in some way. That is what a democracy is all about.

Second, just a comment. The point that I would like the member opposite to consider is the fact that quantities of chemical or biological agents suitable for use by terrorists are so small that it will not be possible for the weapons inspectors to locate them. In other words, an attack on Iraq will not diminish the quantity or the opportunity of terrorists to respond with a chemical and biological agent.

My problem is, and I hope the member will respond to this, is that given that fact and given these quantities of terrorist agent are available in other countries other than Iraq, my worry is that a unilateral pre-emptive strike on Iraq will increase the probability that these weapons will be used in a terrorist context rather than diminish it.

That is what concerns me. I hope the member opposite can respond to that.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to that. I understand that some of these are tiny amounts so I appreciate what the member says about that. I agree with him. We may never find them but again, if people have a clean conscience they will tell the inspectors to go anywhere they like. That would go a long way to make people feel better.

The Saddam Hussein regime is different than some of the other countries in the area. I think he understands that. Some of the things have been going on year after year. To say that other countries will step up and the amounts would increase rather than diminish, again that may be too, but that is a moot point and we have a particular problem on our hands with the Saddam Hussein regime.

I wish to mention the whole idea about the United Nations as he did. I understand that too, that it is important to have the umbrella group of countries with the United Nations. I do not dispute that at all. He talks about unilateral force of the United States and people have their hearts set on going to war and they are going to war no matter what.

I do not accept that thesis. He was beating his chest a while ago here, I am hoping he is feeling okay. It was self-inflicted. Nonetheless when I think about people who just toss this comment out, that it is unilateral and George Bush is going to war. Members get all hyped up about it. There is a growing coalition of nations that are concerned about this. He knows that just as well as I do.

If we look at countries such as Great Britain and Australia, these are not flakes. There is a growing coalition of responsible countries which are concerned. So again, members take a swipe at George W. Bush and say it is unilateral and the man is a warmonger. I do not think George Bush is perfect and I dare say he would not think the same about me. Nonetheless, we need to look at a coalition of reasonable, responsible people who are increasingly concerned about this and pay attention to that, not thumping one's chest.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I are actually on the same wave length on this. I will just point out that I said in my original speech that I believe that President Bush had reason to consider that there was a problem in Iraq and that it had to be addressed.

I only urge him, and I think the member would agree with this, that we need to try to do it under the umbrella of the United Nations because that is the moral authority that we need in a situation like that. Otherwise the danger is being seen as a wanton aggressor. I do not think that is the intention of the President of the United States. I think it is a perceptual danger. Canada and our Prime Minister have given President Bush very good advice.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with that and I would be thrilled to have the member take that to his caucus and some of the ensuing speeches reflect that. I can only guess that he is having some difficulty with some of the things that he has read in Hansard because that is not the intention or the sense of emotion that has come out in this debate unfortunately for members on his side of the House.