Debates of May 15th, 2003

Supply

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I shall read the motion before us once more:

That this House urge the government not to take part in the United States' missile defence plan.

The least one can say is that I am not in any way inclined toward nor do I have any sympathy for militarism as a doctrine for this government.

My recent activities illustrates my point very well, including my involvement in the elimination of landmines, my active support of the struggle against the recruitment of child soldiers, my humanitarian involvement in Chiapas and Iran, my support for the establishment of an international criminal court, and my unequivocal support for my government when it decided not to participate in the war in Iraq.

And yet, I encourage my government to begin talks with the United States about possible Canadian participation in missile defence for the North American continent. I would like to explain my position, which is based on four fundamental principles.

First of all, I believe that the state has the duty to ensure the security of its citizens. I do not necessarily share the American assessment that Canada would be a potential target for hostile action by someone, somewhere on this planet.

Nevertheless, the world has been full of surprises in the last 15 years, and no one can predict with certainty what the geopolitical state of the world will be in another 15 or more years. Canada must continue to actively promote the cause of peace, but cannot, on its own, prevent all extremism.

In addition, the fact that Canada may not be a potential target does not mean that it could not be a potential victim. An attack by a missile with a nuclear, bacteriological or chemical warhead aimed at Chicago, New York or Seattle would almost certainly produce fallout in Canada. Are we going to leave it up to others to protect us?

That brings me to the first fundamental principle of my position, that is, the exercise of Canadian sovereignty. In this matter, I refer to the White Paper on Defence, published in 1994, which states the following:

Canada should never find itself in a position where the defence of its national territory has become the responsibility of others.

For our American allies, in terms of decision-making, missile defence is a fait accompli. It presupposes the careful examination of a host of scenarios and the planning of countermeasures that would have to be launched within 20 minutes or less of the launching of a hostile missile.

Would we be better able to ensure the protection of Canadians if we participated in examining these scenarios, or if we were absent? Would Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver be better protected if our neighbours were left to assessing needs on their own, or if our government took part in these plans to protect us? For me, the answer is obvious.

Canada's participation, incidentally, would be fully in line with our commitment to contributing to the defence of North America. This commitment dates back to the second world war. It stems from the Ogdensburg declaration, signed in 1940 by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Mackenzie King.

This commitment is the foundation of an essential instrument for defence cooperation known as the Canada-United States Permanent Joint Board on Defence, or the PJBD. I have had the honour to chair the Canadian section of this board since 1998.

The Ogdensburg declaration paved the way for the NORAD agreement, in 1958. This agreement to protect North American airspace is a marvellous example of military cooperation that reports to a binational command that fully respects the sovereignty of both countries. This is one of the cornerstones of our position, and my position especially, which is that missile defence absolutely must come under NORAD.

Some people argue, quite honestly, I am sure, that supporting missile defence means supporting the weaponization of space. We need to make a critical distinction here between the militarization of space and the weaponization of space.

The militarization of space has long existed. For example, reconnaissance satellites for military purposes have been circling the earth for many years, using the technologies of many countries, including Canada.

The weaponization of space, which would mean deploying arms in space, is a whole other ball game. Canada has traditionally opposed the weaponization of space. It must continue to do so aggressively.

In passing, the Americans have not yet decided where they stand on this. There has been no debate yet in the U.S., and should there be, there is little to indicate that the American political class will decide to deploy weapons in space.

I am fully convinced that we must continue to use all our moral influence to oppose the weaponization of space. This has nothing to do with a decision on the missile defence plan. It has nothing to do with the famous star wars program as imagined by President Reagan.

Opponents of Canada's participation in the missile defence plan allege that it would encourage nuclear proliferation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Canada has always played a key role in fighting nuclear proliferation and must continue. The diplomatic fight against proliferation and the missile defence plan are not mutually exclusive.

But the missile defence system would send an interceptor carrying no explosives of any kind, to destroy a hostile missile solely upon impact. It is not illogical to think that having a missile defence system could deter a hostile country from even producing nuclear weapons since they would be useless. This would therefore reduce the danger of proliferation, not increase it.

Perhaps this explains in part the interest expressed many countries such as China, Russia, Japan, European countries and others, in the missile defence plan.

It is absolutely impossible in a few short minutes to speak comprehensively about such a complex issue, which has been discussed for many years by the Canada-United States Permanent Joint Board on Defence.

So, on the basis of these principles, Canadian sovereignty, the protection of Canadians, the fight against nuclear proliferation and the refusal to weaponize space, I encourage my government to undertake constructive talks with our American friends about our participation in a future missile defence system. The Canadian public must participate in this debate, not based on dogma but rather on facts and our real options.

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Brossard—La Prairie. The speech that he just made was very short, very measured, and very substantial, and expressed the government's position well, unlike what we have been hearing since the beginning of the day, for someone who is more accustomed to agriculture.

In this debate, I thought I would put myself in the position of the people who are listening to what is happening today, that is the fact that the opposition wants a debate on these issues. We heard the comments of the member for Saint-Jean and the words that I have noted are: I do not think so; possibly; perhaps; could perhaps. However, the government members have not indulged in speculation.

I wanted to congratulate our member, who knows how to assemble the facts to tell people exactly how the government can work cooperatively. We also heard the minister talk this morning about the smart borders strategy and the desire to pursue the dialogue and to sit at the table to be able to make decisions with our allies. He did a magnificent job and I was not the only one who thought so.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed, I am blushing and I am afraid my ego is getting more and more inflated by the minute. Seriously, there is one thing that I want to say. When the Bloc Quebecois brought forward this motion this morning, I thought that it was really doing something worthwhile because these issues are extremely complex. However, we must not get caught in technical details, dogmatism, superficiality or prejudice at the expense of the real questions that we should be asking ourselves.

If there is anything we should be doing to benefit from the fact that we are debating this motion today, it would be to give Canadians an opportunity to consider what I think is the real issue here. Is Canada contributing to world peace or, on the contrary, is it not acting in the interest of world peace by taking part or considering taking part in this system? My answer is that it is contributing to world peace.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie just raised a most interesting question. Does he at least give credit to the opposition, in this case the Bloc Quebecois, for bringing forward this issue for debate because his government would not do it?

It is the opposition, more precisely the Bloc Quebecois, that proposed a motion today to launch this debate. We do not have a lot of information so far. The Bloc must be given credit for launching this debate. Since there was no time for a briefing and since we have not be given any information, any more than the public has, perhaps that explains why we are using the conditional.

We could not say, “This is what is going on and this is what will happen”. We are forced to get into a debate without having any information whatsoever on the issue being debated.

Nevertheless, I am happy to hear the member say that he gives credit to the Bloc for having brought this issue forward for debate. Perhaps he could say it even more clearly.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in school, I learned this maxim by Boileau:

What is conceived well is expressed clearly,and the words to say it arrive with ease.

I have said all I had to say in this respect.

As for making this debate possible, I must point out that the Standing Orders of the House are very clear. Opportunity is given to the opposition to select the topic of discussion for debate on an opposition day.

This is what we are having today; this is democracy at work. The consultation process has started. I am happy with that. There will be more discussion at every level. I think that the public and the media will take part. I welcome this debate with great serenity and comfort.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.

Second, I wish to commend the hon. member for Saint-Jean on the relevance of bringing this issue forward for debate in the House today. Clearly, this is a debate this Liberal government wanted to avoid, given the internal tensions. This illustrates the culture of this truly unique party in Canada. Being in office 69 years over the past 100 years is taking its toll, there is no doubt about it. We are witnessing a trademark of this government and this political party.

I congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Jean because this is a very important debate. This issue is causing anguish. The more I hear and read about it, the greater my concern, especially with my understanding of the context in which antimissile defence is being contemplated. Given the recent history of the United States, it comes at what seems to me to be a pivotal moment.

To give a brief historical overview, the 1960s saw the threat of the use of nuclear weapons. We are familiar with the tragic incidents at the end of the war in 1945 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These are sad memories in the history of humanity.

So we find ourselves in the 1960s with two superpowers, the USSR and the USA. In 1972, wisdom dictated the ABM treaty. This was a 30-year treaty signed by Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev banning the development of antimissile missiles, ensuring nuclear parity and balance, and limiting the number of offensive nuclear weapons allowed in each country to 100. This created some balance and lessened tensions considerably.

Things went relatively well except that in the 1980s the Reagan administration decided to get involved in a nuclear initiative that would upset the balance if taken to the extreme. Concern heightened. Apparently in response to pressures from the other nuclear powers, the Americans were obliged to back down on this aggressive approach which had the potential to upset everything that had already been discussed.

Now, moving on to 2002, things got really worrisome. The Americans called for the 1972 treaty not to be renewed when it reached the end of its 30-year term, that is in 2002, and refused to proceed any further with the country that had by then become Russia.

So the situation now is one of open doors and the rather terrifying concept of the so-called pre-emptive strike. We saw that concept put into use in Iraq. Now we see it behind the missile defence plan.

Fortunately, as has been already touched on, there appears to be an important debate going on within the U.S. itself, among the Americans who see how dangerous it may be to get involved in initiatives of this type. With the post-war situation in Iraq, we find ourselves in a world where there are no controls and world public interest is non-existent. With the unilateral action of the Americans, no one at present is in a position to lecture them or to have any negative reaction such as telling them not to go too far.

The U.S.S.R. no longer exists, and China has not reached that same level. Actually, in this debate, China is not only expressing its displeasure in whatever way it can, but it is also suggesting a complete demilitarization, so that all nuclear arms would be prohibited, and all weapons of mass destruction would be destroyed. This is the position of China at present.

After the aggression against Iraq, the Americans rule the world unchecked. That is another sign, obviously, of what has inspired them. The American doctrine of manifest destiny has led the U.S. from victory to victory, to the point that they are now a dominant force not only militarily but also economically. And while they are at it, they want to control space as well.

This attitude is not very wise. This is just the political-military instincts or interests talking. This does nothing to enhance a sense of security. When we think about the political-military complex and an investment of $60 to $100 billion in this plan, should it be carried out, we are far from talking about the Tobin tax or its equivalent or about the unequal distribution of wealth between individuals, countries and continents.

I came back from Africa last week. I went to the Ivory Coast and I was fortunate and unfortunate enough to leave the luxury hotels we were staying in--you know how these things work Mr. Speaker--and go to the shantytowns. I was with a colleague, a member of Parliament from Benin. Again I explained my reaction. I had been to Abidjan a few times before, and I always say that it is terribly sad to see such poverty and idleness, to see people wander around with no place to go. People just walk. Some sell apples, others sell pineapples or old tires. They live in dirt and dust. I told my colleague how terrible and unacceptable those conditions were and he replied, “My dear colleague, it is even worse in my country; at least ,people here have shoes. They have a little white vest. They have a place where they can sleep. In my country, things are much worse”.

So ours is a time of development of the underdevelopment. And yet, we see projects that, clearly, are just toys for the privileged few in this global society.These people are preying on the rest of the world and want to prey on it even more; they never have enough material wealth and never have enough power. We stand by, powerless to deal with this form of political and economic chaos. We are among the privileged few. At least we can speak out. I hope we can still do so safely, because even parliamentary democracy could be threatened one day.

Where will it stop? It is just like the airline industry after September 11. We are killing this international public service. It is getting increasingly complicated and uncomfortable to fly. Not only are the security checks getting more and more thorough before boarding, but on deplaning we are informed that there will be further passport checks. Imagine 200 to 300 tired passengers. It is 5 o'clock in the morning, in Paris, and they are getting their magnifying glasses out to check passports. Is this the kind of world we want to live in? Is this tomorrow's society? I am happy I am the age I am and not 20 years old. What kind of a world will we end up with if this kind of mentality prevails? Where is all this going to lead us? There is no collective reflection. There is no concern for social justice in this world. Even though the United States are sucking up the world's wealth, there are 50 million poor in that country, and nobody seems to care.

With projects like that one, we have every right to be worried, unless things change and we have a frank discussion, however limited our means to do so are as human beings.

The government should abide by the recommendation made by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs in its report made public last week.

Recommendation No. 12 states:

The government should not make a decision about missile defence systems being developed by the United States, as the technology has not been proven and details of the deployment are not known. However, the government should continue to monitor development of this program with the government of the United States and continue to oppose the weaponization of outer space.

That is what Liberal members and others said. It is to their credit, and I believe we should proceed with calm, wisdom, reflection, and a concern for social justice and a better distribution of wealth. There is no other way.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to my hon. colleague and there are several things that bother me considerably. I think it may just be a lack of sensitivity, but he spoke about preventive attacks with respect to the U.S. government's actions in Iraq.

Is he aware that today we are talking about a defensive weapon, not an offensive one? Is he aware that the issue is protecting oneself against attack rather than attacking?

The second thing is that there was mention of collective reflection and my hon. colleague has been extremely eloquent on many topics, particularly social conscience, social justice and so on. Perhaps I should remind him that it was our government that launched the initiative for Africa. It was our government—or at least, the previous finance minister—who put forward the idea of global equalization. I believe these things are not mutually exclusive. That has nothing to do with antimissile defence.

In what way does protecting the security of our citizens within a reasoned and reasonable framework have a negative effect on our activities in trying to attack the fundamental causes of human poverty and hopelessness?

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we speak of pre-emptive strikes, I think this is very much to the point. Means are being put in place for defence against potential attacks from where? We need to be realistic. What country on this planet can believe it has the capacity to seriously attack the United States, even at this time, without anti-missile missiles and with a missile defence plan in place as well? I think that there is something reprehensible about this when one thinks of other ways the funds could be used. This is what needs to be kept in mind primarily.

If we put the $60 billion to $100 billion we are going to put into the military-political complex into some just cause, famine in Africa, drinking water in Africa, we would achieve our goal promptly. That is obvious. So we have the wrong target here.

As for the other aspect, saying that our government has done this, our government has done that convinces me that we need to elevate the debate somewhat. The Liberal Party is being attacked on its lack of democratic transparency. I believe that, as a fellow human being, the member for Brossard—La Prairie should be able to feel that my words are not partisan. I think that what is at stake here is humanity.

We must all elevate the level of this debate in order to address the leaders of this world, those who are in the spotlight, as well as all those who are backstage, out of sight, the ones that remain unseen, ghostly presences, but human beings nonetheless. The leaders need to be reminded that these invisible others have children and that those children will have children and wonder whether the sun will end up killing them instead of providing them with the means to live on an equal basis with others.

As my colleague from Champlain has already pointed out so eloquently, the sun is going to kill us pretty soon, if we continue—and this is one of the issues—to let pollution run rampant, to allow the environment to deteriorate.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want, unlike my hon. colleague for Brossard—La Prairie, to congratulate my hon. colleague for Trois-Rivières because he is a man of social conscience.

This has everything to do with the fact that we are elected representatives in a society that must set priorities when it comes to spending taxpayers' money. When it comes to deciding to invest their money in projects worth hundreds of millions, and hundreds of billions, of dollars in the U.S., I think that, as politicians, we have a role to play.

On that note, I want to congratulate the hon. member because he is involved, and this is quite relevant to the debate. I want to tell him that I greatly admire his thinking.

I would like him to say, in closing, a few words about establishing priorities in a society. Should we not, for example, adopt a more pacifist approach, based on international solidarity, rather than on defence and maximum security to protect ourselves from those for whose poverty we are ultimately responsible?

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to protect ourselves from the paranoia of our neighbours and friends to the South. The media is completely misleading the public. An attempt is being made to justify implementing all sorts of control mechanisms that will erode not only the Americans' quality of life, but perhaps that of the entire planet. People will feel like cats and dogs fearing, from sunup to sundown, an attack on their person or their country.

This is, to some extent, unhealthy, a fact that must first be acknowledged and then condemned. The healthy development of humankind is in no way advanced by this attitude. We should be focussing on how to make the world a better place.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise and speak to the Bloc Quebecois's opposition day motion, moved by my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean. I would like to take the time to commend him today for his work.

I was listening to his speech this morning. Not only was he very convincing, but he also gave us an overview of the factors that led Canada to take part in discussions in recent weeks about the possibility of participating in a missile defence plan.

The motion reads as follows:

That this House urge the government not to take part in the United States' missile defence plan.

It has become clear that because of the events of September 11, the U.S. government has decided to view the future through a different lens. Some months later, on December 17, 2002, the American President announced the development of a missile defence system that would deploy its first 10 rockets within two years. The U.S. government announced and acknowledged that the purpose of the plan was to protect the United States from what it called rogue states and terrorists.

It is interesting to recall that in the weeks following the U.S. government's announcement, President Bush said, in a press release, and I quote:

The United States will take every necessary measure to protect our citizens against what is perhaps the gravest danger of all: the catastrophic harm that may result from hostile states or terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.

In the months following December 17, 2002, the United States government stepped up the pace on what would become its new policy and its new approach. Incidentally, in the weeks that followed the U.S. president's announcement, the Pentagon announced that there would be an initial deployment of 10 missiles in 2004 in Alaska, California and at sea.

Not only did the events of September 11 provide the Americans with a motive for pursuing the deployment of the missile defence system, but there was a very important and very real international factor in June 2002, when the ABM treaty expired. This treaty was signed in 1972 in Moscow. Not only did this treaty expire, but the United States announced that it would not be signing on again.

This treaty is pivotal in history as a mechanism setting limitations on ballistic missile systems by first banning the development of antimissile missiles and then reducing their number to 100. A significant step was made in Moscow in 1972. Unfortunately, in June 2002, the Americans refused to renew the treaty.

As my colleague from Saint-Jean indicated this morning, these are not new projects. In March 1983, President Reagan launched a star wars project, which I feel would have weaponized space. We must ensure that successors to this American president do not pick up where he left off. We must be vigilant.

Why would government members opposite have us believe that this missile defence plan is appropriate to achieve the objectives pursued by the U.S.? The U.S. itself says it wants to protect its citizens against hostile countries. It wants to protect the public against terrorist groups. That may be, but is this system the best weapon, the best tool for that purpose? Personally, I do not think it is.

I think that any future war will be much less overt and will use much less sophisticated weapons. The enemy may attack from a distance, but it will certainly not be thousands of kilometres away.

If the hostile countries the Americans have in mind are countries like Iran or Iraq, the question we must ask ourselves is whether at present they have nuclear weapons of mass destruction—I emphasize nuclear—that could reach the United States. Weapons inspectors, starting with Hans Blix, and the Americans on site did not find any nuclear weapons in Iraq.

Therefore, this American solution to which the Canadian government is opening the door is not the answer to the problem of protecting American citizens against the hostile countries I have mentioned. Neither is it an appropriate tool to fight terrorism, because terrorism is at a much closer range, inside our countries even.

Finally, if there were only one country that could reach North America, as my colleague from Saint-Jean was saying, it would perhaps be North Korea. As he pointed out, upon commencement of hostilities, it would take up to 20 minutes for the first missiles to reach the United States. Would a missile defence system block a missile coming from North Korea? I do not think so.

Therefore, we must wonder about the relevance of this plan. So far, testing has not been conclusive. Moreover, this plan has generated distrust among European countries, in Russia and in China. Indeed, this missile defence plan could upset the international balance of power.

We must work toward a solution that will bring peace, not one that could cause a return to militarization. I think that some members opposite want to achieve this goal, but they must realize that missile defence is not a solution.

Finally, with regard to costs, there is good reason to ask ourselves a lot of questions, knowing that the estimated cost of this plan is $60 billion to $100 billion U.S. If the Canadian government opposite thinks that simply taking part in discussions—as it did recently, on January 20, 2003, when it sent a delegation of diplomats and military officials to discuss Canada's participation—will have no impact, it should remember what happened in the past.

My colleague mentioned it this morning. When we look at Canada's participation in the first phase of the joint strike fighter program, which will cost $250 million to $500 million, I think it shows that these initial discussions could be the first step toward Canada's definite involvement in a plan which, I am sure, is not supported by the people of Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, whom I represent in this House.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his speech, which was very clear, as usual.

There is one side of the issue he has not dealt with, namely how things are being done in the House these days. People should have seen the procedural hoops the Bloc Quebecois had to go through to bring to the House this debate the government seems determined to restrict to the Liberal Party.

I would like the member to share his thoughts with us on the way the debate was initiated. It was not at the urging of the Prime Minister; this is not his motion and he is refusing to allow it to be made votable.

The member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie could perhaps give us a rundown on the democratic process in the House at this point of the debate on the missile defence plan.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is self explanatory, but I will make one comment.

I believe the way this Parliament and this government are behaving is totally unacceptable and undemocratic. How can we accept the government sending a Canadian delegation to the United States on January 20, 2003, when Parliament had not even debated the issue? Especially as the committee had made several recommendations. I invite the parliamentary secretary, who is glaring at me, to read Recommendation No. 12 which states:

The government should not make a decision about missile defence systems being developed by the United States...

I could go on.

Not only has this government shown a lack of respect for the House by engaging in discussions before the issue was even debated by Parliament, but it is also showing a lack of respect for the committee that recommended otherwise. Furthermore, the Prime Minister said in the House last week, I heard him, that the Bloc could use its opposition days. The Bloc is doing exactly that. The Bloc is using its opposition day.

The government and the Prime Minister have the authority to ask Parliament to voice its opinion and vote on the issue. If the Prime Minister and the government were as democratic as they claim, they would let us vote on the issue and everybody in this Parliament would be happy.

Mining Industry

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as a geological engineer, I am proud to rise today to salute the mining industry which forms the economic backbone of more than 100 Canadian communities. These communities are located in all regions of the country, but are mainly in remote and rural areas.

Canada ranks first in the world for the production of potash and uranium and is the second largest producer of nickel and asbestos, according to 2002 statistics.

Canada is a world leader in the production and export of mining equipment, expertise and innovation. These include software development, robotics, geophysics and the use of global positioning systems in exploration and mining operations.

The Canadian mining industry is a world leader in the development of telemining, the operation of mining vehicles by remote control from above ground consoles, and in fuel cell development for heavy industries in addition to mining.

In 2001 the government contributed $370 million to research and development in the mining and mineral processing industries.

With this being National Mining Week, we are proud to say that we support the mining industry in Canada.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals new young offenders act has been rejected outright by my constituents.

Seniors are afraid to leave their homes and reports of property damage and theft are escalating at an alarming rate. Parents fear for their kids' safety because of the new legislation's inability to deter youth on youth crime. Others fear their children will become workers for organized crime because of their relative immunity from the law.

The Liberal government has failed our youth. It should listen to Canadians and immediately take back the new act. It must bring forward the necessary legislation that will properly protect our communities and our children. As one of my constituents said, “As a parent of teens, I find this act as I did the old one: totally inadequate and non-supportive of any parent who is trying to teach their kids some consequences for their actions. It is a spineless law”.

Hearing Awareness Month

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that May has been designated Hearing Awareness Month by the Hearing Foundation of Canada.

One in every ten Canadians is profoundly affected by hearing loss. If we transfer those statistics to the House of Commons where there are 301 members, approximately 30 members of the House of Commons would be suffering from acute deafness. I sometimes think it is far greater than 30. Six in every 1,000 babies born in Canada have hearing loss.

Since 1979 the Hearing Foundation of Canada has raised millions of dollars to support services for deaf, deafened and hard of hearing Canadians.

The Hearing Foundation of Canada urges Canadians to join in the fight against hearing loss by avoiding overexposure to noise, wearing hearing protection and donating to medical research.

I ask all hon. members to please join me in wishing the Hearing Foundation of Canada a successful Hearing Awareness Month.

International Day of Families

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the UN General Assembly has proclaimed May 15 as the International Day of Families. The UN program of action for social development states:

The family is the basic unit of society and as such should be strengthened. It is entitled to receive comprehensive protection and support.

Shamefully, in our world today there are those who are bent on the destruction of the family. Some would advocate practices which would simply impact children like pieces of property to be passed around to accommodate adult conveniences.

The best interests of the children in any family should be the family's guiding principle. The protection and support of families should be the number one priority of the government.

The Canadian Alliance believes in protecting, supporting and encouraging families as the basic unit of Canadian society. Today I would like to honour those who are committed to their families. Their commitment to their families may sometimes go unnoticed, but its value is immeasurable. On behalf of Canada's official opposition, I thank them for their commitment to their families.

William Osler Health Centre

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, dealing with the SARS outbreak is challenging enough for Ontario hospital staff and physicians, but managing a hospital evacuation in one month and then managing the prevention of the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome in the next month has certainly shown that staff and physicians at William Osler Health Centre have an extraordinary commitment to the health of their patients.

During the month of February a power failure necessitated the evacuation of William Osler Health Centre's Brampton campus. This event demonstrated the teamwork, commitment and dedication of the health care individuals who work under sometimes very trying circumstances.

A short month later William Osler Health Centre staff rose to the next challenge, the management of SARS.

Tireless individual effort and exceptional teamwork across all three sites, and specifically the Etobicoke campus, once again enabled the William Osler team to successfully implement the provincial directives on SARS.

Congratulations to Bob Bell, the president and CEO of the Etobicoke campus of the William Osler Health Centre, and to all the staff and volunteers at this great hospital.

Mining Industry

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, May 12 to 18 is National Mining Week. Mining puts innovation to work for Canadians every day, from developing leading edge mining technologies such as telemining, to using high strength steel, aluminum and magnesium to manufacture lighter weight automobiles.

This year's theme, “Mining: An Innovative Industry For Canadians”, reminds us that the mining industry is one of the most innovative, technologically advanced and productive sectors in the Canadian economy.

Canada is one of the largest mining nations in the world. We produce more than 60 minerals and metals. In 2001 our mineral exports earned us approximately $46 billion and accounted for more than 12% of Canada's total domestic exports.

Let us recognize mining for its contribution to our country.

Chevalier de Lorimier

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House to note that this year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of a patriot, Chevalier de Lorimier.

François-Marie-Thomas Chevalier de Lorimier was born in Saint-Cuthbert, in the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, on December 27, 1803. Found guilty of high treason, Chevalier de Lorimier was sentenced to hang and was executed with his comrades on February 15, 1839.

Historians and biographers agree that the greatest merit of Chevalier de Lorimier was to have taken his political ideals and his commitment to revolution to the limit, at the cost of his own life. He earned his place in history as a great patriot and as a martyr to the cause of the independence of Lower Canada, which is now Quebec.

The people of Saint-Cuthbert will honour this great patriot on May 18 by unveiling a commemorative plaque in his honour and changing the name of the village's main street to Chevalier de Lorimier.

International Day of Families

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as it is each year, May 15 is an opportunity for all Canadians to celebrate the International Day of Families.

Today we are marking the 10th anniversary of this day being celebrated around the world, and we hope that it will bring happiness, prosperity and success to all Canadian families.

On this special day, I would like to speak directly to each family in Canada to remind them of the important role families play as the foundation of our society. Whatever their makeup, it is through our families that we develop our first human and interpersonal relationships, learn to communicate with others, and interact with the world.

Families have the ability to foster good education and to protect and support their members, and thanks to this ability, we will be able to fulfil our mission as a government, which is to better support the health and well-being of Canadian society in the long term.

Youth Service Canada

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to announce a new project called “Si Sainte-Émélie-de-l'Énergie se racontait”, under the federal Youth Service Canada program, in the riding of Berthier—Montcalm.

This pilot project by the Matawinie CFDC will receive a financial contribution of $129,595 to provide ten dropouts or unemployed youth in the Matawinie RCM with the chance to participate in a heritage experience that will first twin them with seniors and then introduce them to Sainte-Émélie-de-l'Énergie's heritage.

This innovative project will certainly help these young people prepare for a job and above all join the labour market in the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, which is thereby benefiting from a successful federal program.

In closing, I want to wish all the best to participants in this excellent initiative.

International Peace Officer Memorial Day

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, May 15 of each year has been dedicated around the world to remembering and honouring those police officers who have been killed in the line of duty. While we mourn their loss, we are reminded of the service that we as a society ask them to provide.

Our police and peace officers toil in heroic anonymity, putting their lives on the line every day in the interests of safety and security.

Today we pay tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. They have given their lives selflessly to serve and protect our communities.

On behalf of the Canadian Alliance, I offer our thanks and our prayers to the families, communities and the police and peace services that have lost officers.

While we can never repay the debt we owe them, we must, and we will, always remember them.

Kevin Cleary

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay homage to Mr. Kevin Cleary who died peacefully at home in Halifax on May 10, surrounded by his family after a courageous and dignified battle with cancer.

Kevin devoted over 50 years of his life to Saint Mary's University, holding positions including registrar and secretary to the senate. He retired in 1999. It is rather remarkable that the passing of Kevin Cleary coincided with this year in which Saint Mary's University celebrated its 200th anniversary; an institution to which he dedicated most of his life.

Kevin was a vital part of the university community when my brother, husband, sister, and I attended the university in the sixties. He continued to contribute to the university's growth in so many facets during the many years since.

He was a loving husband, dedicated father, caring grandfather, and a steadfast and true friend. Kevin's wisdom, laughter and loyal heart will be sadly missed by a great number of people.

National Nursing Week

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this week is National Nursing Week and today we celebrate the vital role of nurses as the backbone of our health system. We also celebrate the successes of the women who make up 95% of the nursing population.

The recent SARS outbreak has underlined the dedication and sacrifice that nurses bring to the front line of health care.

My colleagues and I in the NDP would like to pay a special tribute to one nurse in particular who has changed the face of nursing in Canada over her career as a trade unionist, nursing professional, and role model for women.

Kathleen Connors has devoted her life to leading the battle for better health care and advocating for nurses. She has served 20 years as president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, providing nurses with a strong and distinctive voice on the national health care stage. While strengthening her own organization, she has proven to be an outspoken leader in the battle to save medicare, as chairperson of the Canadian Health Coalition.

As Canadians pay tribute to the profession they value and trust above all others, we recognize the special contribution of a woman who has played a major role in all our lives.