Debates of April 15th, 2002

Pest Control Products Act

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Vancouver Island North.

It is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-53, a bill that deals with pesticides. There is a lot of information and some misinformation concerning pesticides and I think that above all else we must ensure that the precautionary principle is upheld. All of us here in the House want to ensure that public health and public safety are number one, but we want to make sure that whatever decisions we make on pesticides are based on scientific fact. Herein lies the difficulty: getting to the facts of the matter.

Pesticides are a double-edged sword. On the one hand they deal with removing pests, which is necessary for the production of the food products all of us eat, but on the other hand there can be side effects. I will use the example of DDT. We know that DDT has saved the lives of millions of people around the world by preventing malaria and other diseases. In fact it has saved a lot of crops. On the other hand, on our continent we have seen that DDT has had a disastrous effect upon raptors. We saw the decimation of the populations of bald eagles, golden eagles, peregrine falcons and many others when their eggs became too fragile for the little chicks to live. As a result, DDT was rightly banned in North America. We want to make sure in dealing with pesticides that science and public safety will be upheld.

I only have a few minutes so I will deal with an issue that is important in my heart and to many of my constituents and that is the safety of children. We know that all of us are living in a chemical soup. It is a soup made up of chemicals from pesticides and from agricultural products that are dumped into the water and get into our environment. Sadly, when we track this over the last 25 years we see a very disturbing trend. We see a massive increase in asthma and a massive increase in childhood tumours, from acute lymphocytic leukemia to tumours of the central nervous system and tumours of the bone and muscle. This is very disturbing because these tumours have been and are very rare, but the numbers are increasing quite dramatically.

If we look at different demographic patterns and different areas where these tumours and cancers are found, we see a trend that correlates in some cases to areas where people are exposed to a high level of pesticides. In my province of British Columbia in the Okanagan Valley, in areas around Prince George and indeed in my riding in Sooke, I see a very disturbing trend of an unbelievable increase in the amount of tumours that are relatively rare, but in profusion in these areas, and a parallel with the implementation and use of certain pesticides.

What we in our party are saying is let us make sure that pesticides are safe. We applaud the bill in the sense that it deals with issues such as children and issues such as using science, but we think it can go further. We think the government and the minister should be using scientific information not only from within Canada but from around the world. Why do we not hook up with other researchers around the world and use the best information, the best science, to apply to the work that we are doing here? Surely countries around the world, all of us, are in the same position. All of us want to ensure whether certain pesticides should or should not be used. We are asking the government to link up, to make official linkages with other researchers around the world to ensure that the best research information is used in the evaluation of pesticides.

Other things can be done. There are alternatives to pest control, such as using certain trees and shrubs, using certain lawn products that are not pesticides, digging weeds out by hand and keeping our lawns well watered and fertilized. We should remember that a healthy lawn is a healthy deterrent to weeds. We also can use different vegetable gardens. Indeed, if we plant alternative plants we can find a cross benefit in protecting gardens from certain pests. We also can use biodegradable products, cultivate our gardens and rotate our crops each year. These are alternatives to the very easy response, which is to simply spray our lawns with a pesticide.

What the government can do is work with the other two jurisdictions, the provinces and the municipalities, on a public education program to tell the public that there are other ways to protect our lawns, that there are alternatives to pesticides. Were we to do that, we would see a dramatic reduction in pesticide use among homeowners. Although homeowners represent only 15% of all pesticide users, why it is important is that it is homeowners who use pesticides inappropriately. That is the key. I would ask the Minister of the Environment to work with his counterparts across the country on a public information program that would dramatically reduce pesticide use by showing how to use pest control alternatives. We must remember that pesticides are only one of the choices we have in this whole area.

There are other things we need to do. We need to look at risk management, accountability and transparency. One of the things we have found that is problematic in the Pest Management Regulatory Agency is that there is not enough transparency, not enough accountability, in determining the evaluation process. In my riding and I am sure in many others, Canadians are concerned. They do not have the information. They are concerned when people get sick after being exposed to pesticides. They do not have answers, but they want and indeed deserve answers from the government. Why does the minister not stand up with his counterparts and answer the questions the public has?

As an example, we can look at the gypsy moth eradication program that took place on Vancouver Island. Low flying planes sprayed pesticides all over Victoria. The question is, was it useful? Another question is, was it necessary? I think the answer to both is no. No, it was not useful. No, it is not necessary. Clearly we cannot have these knee-jerk responses to dealing with problems as opposed to having well thought out, reasoned ideas and solutions to deal with the management of pests that exist among us.

Another problem we have in British Columbia is the issue of the northern pine beetle. The northern pine beetle is having devastating effects on the forest industry in my province. People who fly over northern British Columbia see a swath of forest that has been destroyed by the northern pine beetle. It is staggering. The economic effect has been devastating. That, combined with the punitive American softwood lumber tariffs that have been imposed on our country, has been devastating for our lumber industry. My colleagues in our party have asked the minister across the way to please intervene with the forest industry and stakeholders and deal with this problem. If it is not dealt with, this summer will be a very bleak one indeed for the forestry industry as the northern pine beetle continues its devastating ways, destroying larger and larger swaths of the Canadian northern forest industry.

There is a huge movement in the country to deal with the abolition of genetically modified organisms. A lot of emotion surrounds the issue. The fact is that if we did not have GMOs large numbers of crops we normally have would be destroyed. We cannot forget that GMOs provide our burgeoning population with food. Who are we, who can afford products that are not modified in any way, to tell developing countries that they cannot have genetically modified foods?

GMO foods are saving millions of lives across the world. We cannot deny those food products and seeds to countries that are on the brink of starvation. If they did not have them, crops would be destroyed by normal pests that eradicate foods in those developing countries. We need to stand up and say that genetically modified organisms must be allowed if they are safe and we must do the research to ensure that they are safe. On the other hand, we cannot have a knee-jerk response and deny the developing world genetically modified foodstuffs that will save people's lives.

It is a balancing act. We support a balancing act that of course favours public safety, but again, let us respond to these challenges based on fact and science and not based on emotion.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-53, which is about regulating pesticides. I am pleased to do so because prior to joining this place I held a pesticide applicator's licence for about 20 years and used pesticides in a very broad landscape, that being the forests on the coast of British Columbia. Of course that at times could be a controversial thing to do, but I think I did it very responsibly. I feel that as a consequence of that background I can bring a perspective to this issue that is different from many in the House

The average person has to think for a minute about what we mean when we say pesticide, because it can mean anything from the little spray thing used on insects to something spread by an airplane in Vietnam to knock out forest canopy. There are a lot of visual images. Pesticides is the umbrella term for herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. When we talk about using a pesticide, then, we have to define what the pest is, and the pest is in the eye of the beholder. What is a pest today might not be a pest tomorrow.

We are all sophisticated enough to recognize that when it comes to a management regime, it is important to define what we are trying to do and to target whatever we are trying to do as closely as possible. That is something I took pride in doing, because for the most part the kinds of applications I was involved with were done by hand and done, in my case, on an individual tree basis.

This did give me a certain perspective relating to how the pesticide management review agency should operate. At that time, if a product had an agricultural label, even though that might be a perfect formulation for use in the forest, one might be pre-empted from using it. Because the agricultural market then was a lot larger than the forest management market, many companies refused to pay the serious upfront expenditures required in order to get that kind of labelling because it was simply not worth it.

We oftentimes felt we were using chemicals that we would have preferred not to, but we were using them because they were the only ones authorized under the federal permitting process. I have not kept up with all of the detail behind this, but in all likelihood that probably is still occurring. I see that the legislation still includes as a part of the process that the effectiveness of the chemical be listed and I think this is counterproductive. This is one part of the bill that I definitely would like to see changed. Let the customer, the industry, whatever sector is using that formulation, determine whether or not the chemical is effective.

I can give a somewhat humorous example. When maple trees are cut down they coppice, they tend to grow up from the stump. There is a lot of energy in the roots and they have this multiple stem coppice that comes up. We found this most disconcerting in some areas that had a lot of maple. We wanted to establish a new crop, but that is not what we wanted so we tried different chemicals and chemical formulations and nothing worked. Then we had a crew go through a hillside and inject the individual stems. We found that it worked sometimes and not other times.

Through trial and error and scientific analysis we checked to see why it would work here and not work there. We found it was working where we had a somewhat lazy operator, a lazy worker who did not treat every stem or every coppice. We figured the biology is that by keeping a few alive, the material recycled enough times that it got everywhere and then eventually killed the entire coppice network.

We learned a huge lesson by accident from a worker who was not following instructions. The very way we have had some of our best scientific discoveries has been through laboratory accidents or observations where things have happened overnight in a Petri dish or in some other experiment.

The government should try to stay away from regulating all of the uses or potential uses and let industry and the user make that decision. Of course, safety has to be the first and foremost concern.

Those are some of my key observations. I am a great believer that target treatment is important. Operational and other research and development should be encouraged. The way to encourage that is to have not too much specified detail on how people utilize the material.

Other than that, the bill is going in the right direction. I am encouraged that we have let local usage be determined at the local level. That is very important.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-53, the pest control products act.

The bill is very important not only for the reasons the minister has put forward but also for many other reasons. This is far-reaching legislation. For the first time we have seen something which in a sense will have a direct impact on our community. Municipal politicians in the city of Ottawa are speaking in support of the bill, which is something we do not often see.

The bill will help ensure that our children get special protection from health risks posed by pesticides. To do so the government is enshrining in legislation the requirement to incorporate a modern risk assessment concept including additional safety factors to protect our children.

From a health and environmental aspect the bill requires that any aggregate exposure to pesticides from food, water, residential use and the cumulative effects of pesticides that act in the same way be assessed from here on in.

Another extremely important component about the bill is that the government is continuing to make strides to increase the protection of the health of Canadians. The newly introduced pest control products act will provide special protection for children and pregnant women, will facilitate sharing test data with other regulators and health professionals and will require older pesticides to be periodically re-evaluated.

It is exceptionally important for parliament to pass the bill as quickly as possible so it can be implemented.

I congratulate the minister on this initiative. As well, I congratulate all of the community interest groups who have written to the government and to our offices asking for the speedy passage of the legislation. I do not want to take up any more time except to say that I hope it passes quickly.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you seek it you will find consent to see the clock as 6.30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the proposal made by the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on March 22, I asked a question in the House on gas prices. We all remember what happened last year. Last year, oil companies and gas stations decided to cool it. We did not see gas prices climb up overnight as dramatically as we have seen in recent weeks.

For example, before March 22, the price of gas at the pumps on Prince Edward Island was 64 ¢ a litre, whereas in New Brunswick, it was 74 ¢ on the same day. Across Canada, even here in Ottawa, the price of gas went up.

My question was as follows: Why does the federal government not establish a price review commission, as has done Prince Edward Island?

The price of gasoline per barrel was approximately $25. It had not increased. It was as though Shell, Esso and Petro-Canada had gotten together and decided amongst themselves that, at 3 p.m., they would all climb up the ladder and raise their prices at the same time.

There was a time when the companies were less competitive. If one gasoline company dropped its price, or raised it, the other followed suit. Now they all act at the same time. Today being so much an age of computers, perhaps they just send each other e-mails. I have no idea how they do it.

I do, however, find it unacceptable for the oil companies to be able to raise gas prices the way they do. I am certain that all Canadians everywhere in the country are displeased about this. I am certain that I am speaking at this time for anyone in any political party. The people of Canada are fed up with the way the oil companies of Canada are behaving.

My question is for the minister responsible. Would he be able to get the parties or the provinces to reach consensus? I know that the government representative, that is the parliamentary secretary, is going to reply “Not our responsibility; it is a provincial responsibility”.

I am certain, however, that if it wanted to, the federal government could co-ordinate a meeting of the stakeholders in each of Canada's provinces and territories, in order to reach an agreement that would settle the gas problem. Even if the barrel head price does not go up, the price at the pump jumps by 10 ¢ at a time, for instance from 64 ¢ to 74 ¢ a litre. This is picking the pockets of the consumer and is unacceptable.

If the government wants to get serious, I think the response this evening has to be something other than “It's not our responsibility”. As the government of this country, it has a national responsibility. It is up to the government to bring together all the players so that a gas price review board can be struck, such as they have in P.E.I. Even Newfoundland is currently looking at that possibility. The federal government should then be able to act proactively and to bring people together so as to advance their cause and stop them from being ripped off by the oil companies.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend simply to say this is a provincial matter, but to share a little with the members on what is being done at the federal level.

One thing that is a hallmark of federal legislation in dealing with issues within the gasoline industry is the Competition Bureau. It is responsible to ensure that prices are determined by market forces. A fair, efficient and competitive marketplace provides Canadian consumers with the best prices and encourages companies to innovate and offer new product choices.

More specifically, the role of the Competition Bureau is to administer the Competition Act. The act contains criminal provisions that prohibit price fixing and price maintenance as well as civil provisions that deal with mergers and abusive behaviour by those in a dominant position among others.

All these provisions already apply to gasoline and other petroleum products. The purpose of the Competition Act is to maintain and encourage competition in Canada, and I remind members that this is different from protecting individual competitors or types of competitors.

Within the world of the Competition Act and what it attempts to do in preventing the abuse that the hon. member has mentioned, there are other things such as OPEC production cuts, political tension right now in the Middle East, which is a huge factor, and the recovery of the North American economy, which is now very much in an upswing. These are factors that put pressure on crude oil prices which in turn impact gasoline prices. No matter which level of government we look to, we have to contend and accept that there are many factors that are beyond the realm of either the provincial or federal governments.

The Competition Bureau has been active in examining the markets in the domestic petroleum product industry. I can assure the hon. member that where the Competition Bureau finds that companies or individuals have engaged in anti-competitive conduct, it has no hesitancy whatsoever to move quickly with appropriate action. In fact, there have been convictions in eight out of the 12 cases which were taken to litigation and there is currently another case before the courts.

It is important to note that in the majority of the examinations of the retail gas sector in Canada, the bureau has generally found that prices have been established or set by market forces. Anyone who has evidence to the contrary has the onus to bring it forward to the Competition Bureau.

Although there is much more I would like to share with the House, I sense that I have come to the end of my time. I certainly look forward to responding after I hear the comments of the hon. member.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the Competition Bureau. Look at what has been happening. I do not know how we can pay a certain price for fuel in the middle of the week but when the weekend comes the prices go up. Then on the Monday they go back down. I do not see how that is competitive.

I said that the companies get together because their prices change at the same time. There is no competition between those companies. On Monday at three o'clock in the afternoon they all climb up their ladders at the same time and change the prices on their big signs. There is no competition in that. The only competition is to make big bucks on the backs of Canadians, and that is not acceptable.

I am saying to the more than 300 MPs in the House of Commons, who I am sure buy gas and have the interests of the people in their ridings at heart, that they should do their jobs and put a stop to the hiking of gasoline prices. My point is people do not like this.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst who thinks that we cannot have the impact of market forces in the space of a weekend, let me point out that in the space of just two days last week we saw the head of the government in Venezuela, a key player within OPEC and within the price impact that that organization plays, lose his office on Friday and be back in office on Monday.

I would suggest that certain things do happen on the weekend which impact on these prices and which are outside of the control of government.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this session of parliament, I rose to ask the government, particularly the Department of Human Resources Development, to allocate additional resources for the processing of employment insurance claims. In the softwood lumber industry, particularly because of the crisis with the United States and also because of other market conditions, employment insurance claims have suddenly increased by 15%.

At that time, the minister told me that resources were being added and claims were processed more quickly. I think this is an interesting example of what should be done in the next 18 to 24 months. We know that a 29% tariff is now being imposed by the Americans and we have to act quickly. During this 18 to 24 month period, the government will have to provide enough support to workers and businesses until the WTO decision, which, I believe, will allow Quebec and Canada to win their case and return to free trade on softwood lumber.

Until then, would it be possible for the government to maintain the current moratorium on the number of weeks of benefits to be covered in the future, particularly in regions such as mine, where there are many lumber workers? There is an aberration: when the economy improves, resulting in lower unemployment rates, the number of weeks required to qualify for benefits is higher. This would be understandable in a region where the economy does not rely on seasonal activity, but in a region where the economy does rely on seasonal activity, each time the unemployment rate decreases, this has a negative impact on seasonal workers.

For the next weeks, the next months or the next two years, the government should take a preventive or proactive approach, which we did not see at the beginning of this session. We had to prompt the federal government to make adjustments and to take appropriate measures to help communities, businesses and workers remain supportive of the government's position so we can win our case.

Would it not be possible for the government to take a preventive approach, and bring forth proposals that will guarantee workers a sufficient number of weeks of benefits so as to not have to go through the spring gap again?

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we know EI claimants need to make ends meet. It is a situation with which we have huge empathy. We are very concerned when EI payments are delayed.

The majority of HRCCs in Quebec have minimal backlog volumes despite increased claims intake. There has been an increase of up to 8.7% in 2001-02. However since the end of 2001, the total outstanding claims in the region have dropped from 54,000 to 21,000.

There are individual areas within the city of Montreal that have outstanding claims in excess of our guidelines. These have indeed caused some delays. The employees of HRDC are working hard to resolve these situations. Again, I reiterate these are isolated situations.

The goal of the department is to maintain service levels at 28 days for new claims and to keep backlogs to a minimum. We are doing everything we can to meet the needs of claimants in the face of significantly more EI claims than were expected.

To maintain the best possible service levels, the department is following standard high volume season practices. All available employees are assigned to claims processing so there has been a shift to meet that demand. The claimants who have been waiting the longest are processed first, as it should be. I can assure the hon. member that staff training and implementation of new systems and procedures are done on a priority basis.

We are also responding directly to the situation of workers laid off in the softwood lumber industry. The EI program is there right now to help those workers. We have a process for dealing with mass layoffs and this of course is an example of that. Employers are able to send us the information required electronically now. Automatically printed applications are sent to employers who give them to their affected employees.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the parliamentary secretary that public servants are not to be blamed for the situation. They work really hard.

I would remind my colleague that, a few years ago, before cuts were made, there was an employment centre in La Pocatière with the highest efficiency level in Quebec and maybe all of Canada. That employment centre has now been closed and everything has been centralized in Rimouski. Public servants are very good at what they do, but there is a shortage of them, which means that if there is a sudden increase in EI claims, as was the case in Lac-Saint-Jean, we might be in need of additional resources and more flexibility.

To conclude, let me put this question to the parliamentary secretary. How would members of parliament and ministers react if, all of a sudden, instead of getting their regular monthly pay cheque, it was delayed for two or three weeks? Would there not be a general outcry to have the problem fixed?

When someone loses his or her job, there is a qualifying period, a two week additional delay. Out of respect for these workers and the well-being of their families, would it not be appropriate for the government to ensure that it can deliver on time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do empathize because the client did not get a cheque every month but instead it was a number of weeks later. That would put hardship on my family and all the families to which the hon. member makes reference.

However I spent most of the allotted time explaining that we were trying to respond rapidly to the problem. We are giving priority to those who wait the longest. We have brought in new systems. We are dealing with people by phone in a way we did not do in the past. All this is in recognition of exactly what the hon. member has described. We on the government side are doing our utmost to keep people from waiting any longer than necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, on March 18 I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning the growing violence in the Middle East, particularly in the occupied territories. I pointed out that many Canadians were appalled at the brutal violence of Israeli forces in the occupied territories, the destruction of homes and clinics, the degrading mass detentions and the killings. At the same time I strongly condemned the attacks on innocent Israeli civilians.

I urged the Prime Minister to assure the House and all Canadians that Canada would support resolutions at the then upcoming session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights that called for full respect for international law and an end to the illegal occupation of all territories seized by Israel in 1967. That was on March 18.

At the end of March along with a number of colleagues from the House and Senate I participated in a parliamentary delegation at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. The delegation included Liberal members. It included the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, Liberal Senator Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia, Conservative Senator Raynell Andreychuk, the hon. Bloc Quebecois member from Châteauguay, and myself. Every member of the delegation without exception was absolutely appalled at the position the Canadian government took at the commission with respect to the issue of human rights.

A resolution was put forward at the human rights commission in Geneva based on the powerful and eloquent plea of Mary Robinson, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Ms. Robinson had pleaded with the commission to recognize that a human rights and humanitarian tragedy was unfolding before our eyes in Israel and the occupied territories. She urged the commission to send a human rights delegation of respected leaders including herself to see firsthand the human rights situation.

What was Canada's position? Shamefully, Canada voted against sending a delegation to Israel and the occupied territories to look at the human rights situation. Only two of the 53 countries voted against sending a delegation. Guatemala was the other. Many Canadians were shocked, troubled and saddened the Liberal government was not prepared to support a delegation. Many delegates from other countries asked me the same question.

My question is for the government, through the parliamentary secretary. Will Canada finally show leadership and speak out strongly for an end to the illegal occupation? Will we call for a strong international protection force in the occupied territories to protect the Palestinian people from the ongoing brutality and violence of the Israeli defence forces? My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party also condemn in the strongest possible terms the suicide bombings and attacks on innocent Israeli civilians as recently as this past weekend in the market in Jerusalem.

The violence must end. Canada must call for an international protection force and an end to the occupation.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby--Douglas for his question. It is difficult in four minutes to address all of his concerns. He has had more experience than I in doing so.

We strongly support the initiative right now of President Bush and the discussions which Secretary of State Colin Powell has had with Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat. These meetings have not resulted in an agreement but they are a welcome sign that both sides may be looking for a way out of this deadly confrontation in which Israelis and Palestinians are trapped. I urge them to do so.

Our ambassador to the UN, Paul Heinbecker, stated when he spoke to the UN Security Council on April 8:

That spiral of violence is threatening peace and stability well beyond the confines of the current fighting. Peace in the Middle East is everyone's business.

I turn to the UN Commission on Human Rights which at present is sitting in Geneva seized with a number of draft resolutions concerning the conflict in the Middle East, in particular, their consequences on human rights. Some of these drafts contain language which is extreme and one sided. It often asks the commission to do tasks which are not in its mandate and which it is ill-equipped to perform.

I should like to address certain misunderstandings which appear to prevail with respect to some of the criticisms of Canada's action at the human rights commission. Our voting is guided by the fundamental principles of our Middle East policy. I remind the House that these principles have been endorsed by successive governments and have served Canada well.

To have our support the resolutions should reflect fundamental principles of human rights law. They must be consistent with the treaties, agreements and UN jurisprudence which Canada supports and which underlie the negotiations between the parties to the conflict. They should not undermine the peace process or single out one party unfairly or indulge in inflammatory rhetoric. We take account of the voting intentions of like-minded member states although our decision is always our own.

The upheaval and bitterness provoked by the ever more violent confrontation in the region has created a more than usual emotional climate in the commission's deliberations this year. We are examining all resolutions closely. The Canadian delegation to the commission is working with vigilance to modify or oppose unhelpful resolutions. Our aim at the commission is consistent with our policy for the region, which is an end to violence and a return to dialogue and negotiations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary to clarify our position with respect to the important resolution calling on Mary Robinson, as the United Nations commissioner on human rights, to lead a delegation to examine first-hand the human rights situation in the occupied territories in Israel.

She says that we examine resolutions with care and we look at the position of like-minded states. France, Germany, Spain and Sweden all supported that resolution. There was only one member out of 53, and that was Guatemala, that opposed it. What is clear to many Canadians is that while the United States may have been kicked off the human rights commission it now has a clear mouthpiece at the commission. Canada has in fact taken on the role of speaking on behalf of the United States. It is a pretty sad day for Canadian diplomacy at the human rights commission in Geneva. Why was Canada alone with Guatemala, out of 53 countries, in opposing Mary Robinson?

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

Mr. Speaker, our decision to vote against a resolution to send an observer mission to the region has indeed attracted particular attention. I can assure the House that the decision was not taken lightly given Canada's traditional support for the commission on human rights, the respect we have for the high commissioner, and the gravity of the situation in the region.

Our decision reflected the serious concerns we had concerning the nature of that resolution and the likely impact that such an observer mission and this resolution would have on the search for peace in the region. Like others, including the U.K., Germany and Russia, which abstained, we believed that the scope and mandate of the mission were not properly defined. Our position reflected our considered assessment of the prospects of success. We believe, in the current political context, the UN Security Council is the most appropriate body to deal with those issues related to the maintenance of peace and security.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.)