David Pratt

[Health, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, since the release of the Romanow report the Prime Minister has been clear in his calls for greater accountability with respect to the money we spend on health care.

I rise today to assure the Prime Minister that his leadership on this vital issue has the support of my constituents.

According to a health care survey I conducted in my riding, 93% of my constituents agree that mechanisms should be put in place to increase government accountability. Of the more than 2,000 health care surveys we received, 85% of my constituents agreed that “the federal government should insist on stronger national standards where federal health care dollars are spent by the provinces”.

Like Mr. Romanow, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, my constituents and I strongly believe that any additional money put into our health care system must result in real reform that requires increased accountability to the taxpayers of Canada.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, the hon. member has a funny way of delivering compliments.

The one thing that is evident on this side of the House is freedom of thought on this issue. We have the opportunity to express our views on this issue. That is what this sort of debate is all about and I think it is extremely important.

There is a singularity of purpose to a flock of sheep as well in terms of consistency of mind on these things, but at the same time there may not be a lot of intellectual light generated from that exercise.

I think that this debate is a healthy one. Obviously it is an opportunity for members to express their views and to be heard on this issue. I certainly hope that members will avail themselves of that opportunity.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, if we go back to the practice in the House over the last 50 or 60 years, dating back to the second world war, obviously there was a declaration of war on September 10, 1939, I think it was, when Canada declared war against Nazi Germany. Since then, however, the record has been mixed in terms of whether or not Parliament has voted on the deployment and engagement of Canadians troops abroad.

We saw a significant delay, for instance, when Canadian troops went to Korea. I do not believe there was a debate in the House. I think the troops went sometime in the summer of 1950 and the House did not come back until September or October. If we look at the record we will see that Mr. St. Laurent said at the time that it was the role of the executive to determine whether or not Canada went to war and the House had its say on the basis of the appropriations for the war.

We had a vote in 1990 when the gulf war occurred. I do not believe we had a vote dealing with Kosovo in 1999. It really has been a rather mixed record.

Clearly the one thing we have to keep in mind when we are dealing with grave matters of international crisis is that it becomes very difficult under certain circumstances. This is a factor that has to be borne in mind in terms of what the public believes is the view of Parliament. If the executive, based on intelligence information and other information that it has available, working with its allies, feels very strongly, and I am saying this hypothetically, that Canada must be involved in an armed conflict, and if that were to be put to a vote in the House without all of the members necessarily being aware of all the information that is involved, we could end up with a very mixed message. A very mixed message could be sent to the people whose co-operation and compliance, in connection with UN resolutions perhaps, we are trying to coerce in abiding by the will of the international community. I think that is a consideration.

Perhaps in the years to come we will have more parliamentary jurisprudence on this which will determine a particular course of action that meets all the needs of Parliament to discuss these issues. We are having this debate tonight, which I think is important, but at the same time there are some other factors that have to be borne in mind.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, the threat of force is obviously a critical component with respect to the current situation we face in Iraq. Obviously the Americans have taken that view very seriously. They have pre-positioned probably in excess of 100,000 troops now. As well, the British are in the process of moving 30,000 troops into the region. The threat of force at this point is in fact very credible. Saddam Hussein certainly can be under no illusions that elements of the international community feel very strongly about disarmament of the regime and intend to pursue that course of action.

The problem that we get into, of course, is the issue of whether or not the Security Council may or may not act. Canada as a middle power obviously has traditionally taken the position that we want to work through multilateral institutions. That has been our position in the past. I think that we have tried over many years to ensure that the rule of law replaces the rule of the jungle, and I think we have been very effective at that.

Having said that, let me say that I think we are going to have to wait to see what unfolds over the next little while. I think most people certainly were under the impression that the situation in Iraq was going to take a while to unfold as far as the role of the weapons inspectors was concerned, on how that work was going to proceed and whether or not the necessary level of co-operation was going to exist.

Certainly many of us were surprised by the tone of Mr. Blix's report. I believe it was a very hard message that he delivered, which I think will put the regime of Saddam Hussein in a very difficult position over the coming weeks. Saddam Hussein is either going to have to comply very quickly and demonstrate co-operation very quickly or he is going to be dealt with, perhaps through the Security Council, perhaps through another means.

I do not think we are in a position right now to make a judgment. Things are moving so quickly at this point that I think it is probably prudent to wait to see what sort of information Mr. Powell produces, what further information Mr. Blix produces, and whether or not the regime is going to comply.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I fear the former leader of the official opposition may have had a peek at my speech.

I welcome the opportunity to express my views on this grave issue of international peace and security. The matter of when to use force is the most critical issue any government can face. It must never be taken lightly and it must always be a last resort.

I have never encountered any Canadian who wishes to go to war. In that respect I think we are all, each and every one of us, peace activists.

For anyone who has seen the horrors of war, not from the surreal images that have flooded our TV screens in recent times, but up close at ground level, looking into the eyes of the people affected, it is something that one never ever forgets. The devastation, the loss, the shattered lives, the communities changed forever, the mental and physical scars, many of which never heal, are all part of the devastating cataclysmic horror of war.

I have seen firsthand the face of war in Sierra Leone and Guinea, where the poorest of the poor were brutalized in ways that defy the imagination.

I have seen the face of war in Kosovo and Bosnia, where societies dissolved into chaos and where mass murder and rape shattered the calm of what were ordinary lives. Anyone who has seen the effects of war at close quarters understands that it is to be avoided.

In as much as the revulsion against war is felt deeply throughout the world, at the dawn of the 21st century war regrettably has not vanished from our landscape. We seem to have learned little from the horrific decades of the 20th century. If we have learned anything, I hope it is that the forces of evil and aggression, those with no respect for human life or human rights, those that threaten the peace of the world must be confronted directly and decisively.

Over the years of the last century we have tried to fashion international organizations which provide us with the diplomatic and political tools to avoid conflict. The results of these efforts have been mixed, to say the least.

After the first world war, the League of Nations represented the best hope for enduring peace. It faltered grievously when its resolutions went unenforced and when the allies lost their collective will to uphold the disarmament of the Treaty of Versailles.

In dealing with the international crisis that we now face in Iraq, I cannot help but think of the words of Winston Churchill who, in speaking on the situation in Europe in the 1930s, noted and I quote:

--the strict enforcement at any time till 1934 of the disarmament clauses of the Peace Treaty would have guarded indefinitely, without violence or bloodshed, the peace and safety of mankind. But this was neglected while the infringements remained petty and shunned as they assumed serious proportions. Thus, the final safeguard of a long peace was cast away. The crimes of the vanquished find their background and their explanation, though not, of course, their pardon, in the follies of the victors. Without these follies crime would have found neither temptation nor opportunity.

While different in geopolitical terms, there are in my view too many haunting parallels between the regime of Adolf Hitler and the regime of Saddam Hussein. In the cold light of history we know all too well Hitler's crimes against his own people, against his neighbours and against humanity.

Saddam Hussein's grim legacy, although smaller in scale when we count the million casualties from the Iran-Iraq war and the thousands who perished because of his invasion of Kuwait and his persecution of the Kurds, still places him firmly in the category of one of humanity's truly prolific mass murderers.

Hitler skilfully dodged the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles to rearm and re-equip his Nazi regime with the most modern and destructive weapons of the time. Saddam too has skilfully dodged the provisions of almost a dozen UN Security Council resolutions. In the words of chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, “Iraq appears not to have come to the genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it”.

While Hitler's lack of compliance with the Treaty of Versailles was clearly evident to the international community in terms of planes, battleships, tanks and submarines, Saddam Hussein's arsenal is easily hidden, but potentially much more destructive. A single 122 millimetre rocket shell of the type recently uncovered by weapons inspectors when filled with VX nerve agent, fired into a stadium could easily extinguish the lives of between 20,000 and 60,000 people.

Saddam, again, according to Mr. Blix, has still failed to account for significant quantities of biological and chemical weapons, including stocks of VX nerve gas, two tonnes of nutrients or growth media for biological agents such as anthrax, 550 artillery shells with mustard gas and 6,500 chemical bombs. While some may see Saddam's lack of compliance as technical violations, anyone familiar with the destructive capability of these weapons would see these violations for what they are; material breaches of the so-called last chance United Nations resolution 1441.

While some have suggested that they wish to see a smoking gun in terms of proof, Mr. Blix put this issue to rest on Monday in his statement to the Security Council. He reasserted the role of weapons inspectors as disarmament verifiers rather than sleuths or detectives trying to find the proverbial needle in the haystack. Blix stated, and I quote:

As we know, the twin operation 'declare and verify', which was prescribed in resolution 687 (1991), too often turned into a game of 'hide and seek'. Rather than just verifying declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programmes and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations.

While Blix conceded that the Iraqi regime was co-operating on process but not on substance, the fact remains that after 12 years of evasion, frustration, deceit and obstruction, disarmament of the regime of Saddam Hussein remains an elusive goal.

When confronting a criminal regime of the sort that we face in Iraq, our history should tell us clearly that it is a hard message that must be delivered and nothing short of full compliance is acceptable. A failure to convey a strong, clear message is always interpreted as weakness and a lack of resolve. To force compliance to the will of the international community is, regrettably, often necessary to threaten the use of armed force or, as a last resort, to employ armed force to compel compliance to preserve international peace and security.

In the preface to his award winning series on the second world war, Churchill, who once addressed this chamber during the darker days of the second world war, spoke about how the war could have been prevented. He noted, and I quote:

--how the malice of the wicked was reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous; how the structure and habits of democratic states, unless they are welded into larger organisms, lack those elements of persistence and conviction which can alone give security to humble masses; how, even in matters of self-preservation, no policy is pursued for even ten or fifteen years at a time. We shall see how the counsels of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger; how the middle course adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life may be found to lead direct to the bull's-eye of disaster. We shall see how absolute is the need of a broad path of international action pursued by many states in common across the years, irrespective of the ebb and flow of national politics.

Although time is running out for the regime of Saddam Hussein, some of us still cling to the hope that Iraq might disarm without a single shot being fired and without a single life lost. Failing that, I very much hope we will see a united and concentrated effort through the United Nations to disarm this regime and to ensure that the collective will of the international community prevails.

Should the United Nations fail to accept its responsibility and enforce its resolutions, I believe that this country working with our traditional allies, the United States, Great Britain, Australia and others, should, indeed must, keep its options open in terms of participating in a coalition of like-minded countries to disarm the regime. We have seen the United Nations fail to take effective action in the past in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda.

In the final analysis as the next few weeks unfold, we will hopefully have the benefit of more information from Mr. Blix, Mr. Powell and the regime of Saddam Hussein. Reflecting on our values as Canadians, I earnestly hope that we will be able to make a decision which contributes tangibly to international peace and security.

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, over 14 months ago I introduced a private member's bill which would have prohibited the import of conflict diamonds into Canada and created a diamond certification scheme. At that time I noted, “Canada has an obligation to pass meaningful, effective legislation which would put our domestic policy in line with our stated foreign policy objectives”.

I am very pleased that yesterday the Governor General gave royal assent to the federal government's Bill C-14 which will in fact bring Canada directly in line with the Kimberley process, an international system for the certification of rough diamonds. Once again the Government of Canada has proven its commitment to work with our international partners to address issues of international peace and security and in this case, the illegal trade in conflict diamonds.

I would like to offer my congratulations to everyone involved in this process, all of the officials at foreign affairs and natural resources, as well as the NGO Partnership Africa Canada that did a tremendous job. Its hard work—

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the second question first. The hon. member has made reference to the report. One of the things I was most concerned about in relation to the report was quite frankly the distortion of the position that had been taken by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. It is a position, by the way, which was supported by the NDP member on the committee.

The report states, for instance, that the standing committee was looking to raise the defence budget. It states:

...the committee’s recommendation would more than double Canada’s military spending before the end of the decade, putting it at nearly $28 billion--higher than it has ever been in history.

Quite frankly, the defence committee recommended no such thing. It is not in our report. I challenge the hon. member to find that recommendation in our report. This is simply not factual. When I look at the selective use of some of the facts related to the defence debate, I frankly throw up my hands and wonder where these people are coming from. They seem to be so far out in left field that they are not even close to being on the radar.

As well, in the report there are other statements related to other aspects of defence spending, for instance, statements about the cold war mentality. The original white paper was not written with a cold war mentality. It was written in 1993-94. The world had changed significantly from the cold war. We were facing new problems, new challenges, in the former Yugoslavia. Canadian troops were engaged there very heavily. What the white paper did say was that we needed a multi-purpose, combat capable force, which in my view, and I would dare say in the view of many members of the defence committee, is still very relevant.

No one is questioning the fact that we need a review of defence policy to reflect some of the new challenges we face, especially in terms of terrorism. However, the basis of our defence policy, as many of us on the committee believe, is still very solid, but it does need to be updated.

Another question the hon. member raised was about the whole issue of submarines. Right now in the world there are roughly 500 to 600 submarines. There are diesel submarines that are generally referred to as being conventional diesel submarines, and there are nuclear submarines that typically are possessed by some of the larger powers. Submarines continue to be, for a G-8 country like Canada, a vital component of a naval force, because typically naval forces have capability under the sea, on the sea and above the sea.

I think that the fact we bought four submarines and got a great deal on those submarines is an important thing that Canadian taxpayers should know.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity, as others have, to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and to also extend best wishes to all members of the House present today.

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate in terms of the prebudget, the prebudget consultations that are occurring and to put a few comments on the record with respect to my views and the views of my constituents.

There are a number of issues that the government has to consider as far as the budget is concerned. Many of the issues, which affect Canadians from coast to coast to coast, have to be addressed in the budget exercise. Frankly, from that standpoint I do not envy the role of the Minister of Finance. There are many competing priorities and a lot of demands to fulfil.

The issues that I think have captured the attention of most Canadians are health care, our urban environment, the environment itself, the quality of our water and the quality of the air we breathe. The issues of defence and security have also been of concern to a great many Canadians.

On the issue of health, a great deal of concern has been expressed by the people in my own riding. As the member of Parliament for Nepean—Carleton, I initiated a couple of exercises which I thought were very successful in terms of getting out to the community and talking about the Romanow commission and the views of constituents on health issues. I say they were successful because each meeting attracted probably over 100 residents. We also surveyed the residents on health care issues and received between 2,000 and 3,000 responses. I cannot remember the precise numbers but it was very significant for the number of questionnaires that were sent out.

What came back from that exercise was a number of recommendations which we put together in a report and sent off to the Romanow commission. My staff, who were kind enough to look at the Romanow commission report and at our own report, came to the conclusion that there were some similarities between the two reports. I can actually say that there were quite a few similarities, certainly in terms of the issues that Canadians are thinking about these days, in particular the people of my riding.

On the issue of health promotion and healthier lifestyles, both reports were virtually the same in drawing attention to the matter of public health, occupational health and safety, and disease prevention versus medical care. These are I think very important to most Canadians.

There is the issue of nurse practitioners and the need to dramatically increase the number of nurse practitioners. The Romanow report says something that is fairly similar.

The changing composition of health care workers and the fact that we have more women doctors these days than we had in the past is another issue. We know that women doctors are in a very difficult situation in terms of trying to balance the needs of the home with the needs of a professional medical practice. That means that they are, by necessity, spending less time in the medical practice in terms of trying to juggle their responsibilities. That in itself presents some significant challenges that we have to recognize.

One of the things we noted in our report was the morale of nurses right across the country. We had nurses speak to us from national associations, as well as nurses who have worked in various parts of the country, even nurses who have worked in the United States. What they said was that the morale of nurses in Canada was certainly low. They said that nurses were feeling undervalued and that governments across the country would have to deal with that.

I do not want to go into too much detail on that aspect of things, but I can say that health care remains a key priority for the government to address.

I was only one of about six MPs to do a consultation and produce a report for the Romanow commission on the state of local health care in my riding. I am very pleased with the extent to which Mr. Romanow reflected those concerns in his report.

We have had, in terms of the debate, two major reports, the Romanow report and the Kirby commission report. Ultimately the government will have a pretty tough job of balancing both, especially in terms of the cost. I certainly wish the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health, the Prime Minister, and all those who will be responsible for the negotiations that will have to occur with the provinces in terms of making some tangible improvements to our health care system, which is something that everyone recognizes has to be done.

On the issue of cities, I served as a municipal councillor for nine years with the City of Nepean and subsequently with the regional municipality of what was then Ottawa-Carleton. The challenges faced by our cities is something that we have to recognize as needing federal attention and support. We have recognized that in the past by virtue of our infrastructure programs, but there is a lot more that can and should be done to improve the functioning of our cities, to improve our cities as engines of economic growth and to ensure that the quality of life in our cities is maintained to the point where we continue to have, in my view, some of the best, most livable cities in the world.

What do we need to concentrate on in that respect? We have to concentrate on things like transportation systems. We have to concentrate on waste disposal, certainly from an environmental standpoint. We have to concentrate on how our cities are designed in terms of ensuring that the quality of life within communities is such that they continue to be great places to live. That will, I believe, require federal support in some measure.

I served with the board of directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. From my standpoint, the FCM is one of the leaders working nationally and internationally on quality of life issues relating to urban areas. We would do well to continue to listen to groups like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in terms of designing federal policies that really have an impact.

I would be remiss if I did not say a few words with respect to the defence budget. As chair of the defence committee it is incumbent upon me to make a few comments with respect to the sort of support that many of us hope will be in the next budget coming down in February.

With respect to the recommendations that we made last May in our report, “Facing our responsibilities: The state of readiness of the Canadian Forces”, I have to go back to one of the primary recommendations, which says that Canada has to get its defence spending off the bottom of the major NATO countries. We are at a level of 1.1% of GDP right now. The feeling of the committee was that we have to move that figure up to approximately 1.5% to 1.6% of GDP over the next the next three years.

Before I forget, Mr. Speaker, I did want to make note of the fact that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Durham.

There have been some suggestions, especially in a recent report, “Breaking Rank: A Citizens' Review of Canada's Military Spending”. It is probably one of the most disappointing reports I have ever read in terms of its suggestion that really all of the push for more defence spending is coming from a bunch of retired generals and a couple of parliamentary committees.

I think the push for more defence spending is coming from the people of Canada, who are recognizing, and who have recognized over the course of the past few years, that we have been working the men and women of the Canadian Forces too hard, that there have been too many deployments, that we have sent them on many difficult deployments over the last number of years, and that some of the equipment that the Canadian Forces is using is well past its prime.

Some of the equipment is good, there is no question about that, but we do have to make substantial investments in equipment replacement. I cite as an example that we are going to have to replace our supply ships in the navy and we are going to need to replace our destroyers, which are almost 30 years old.

My time has expired, but I am hoping that there might be some questions, especially on the defence issues so I can talk about the defence budget a bit more.

[National Defence, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of concern expressed by Canadians on the urgent need to replace the Sea King helicopters. Could the Minister of National Defence update the House on the status of the maritime helicopter program?

[Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Winnipeg, Governor General Adrienne Clarkson honoured the brave members of the 2nd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

They were presented the Commander-in-Chief Commendation. This award, which is something I had recommended about four years ago, recognizes outstanding service by members of the Canadian Forces who come under direct fire in times of conflict.

Yesterday's commendation was awarded for courageous and professional execution of duty during the Medak pocket operation in the former Yugoslavia in September 1993. Under heavy enemy fire the Canadians intervened to stop ethnic cleansing in Croatia. They drove the Croatian army back and saved many innocent lives.

Wherever crimes against humanity occur, the international community has an obligation to step in. These brave soldiers were among the first to confront the new realities of international conflict in a changing world. Their courageous response is worthy of our respect and admiration.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating each of those brave soldiers.