Sue Barnes

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, a very quick answer is that is not a worthy question.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, the simple reason is that it is the law of the land that the executive has the right in that situation.

With respect to the Muslim community in my riding, they were active in the resolution that was put before the people at our peace rally and that was following the UN Security Council resolutions.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, in the context of whether or not there should be pre-emptive strikes, the answer is no, I am not in favour of pre-emptive strikes. In the context of is this the only multilateral organization that Canada is engaged with, obviously it is not. However in the context of whether a Security Council resolution that is currently standing and affects the particular situation we are in right now, the only place that we should be going that has the capacity to give effective multilateral action at this time is the Security Council. I firmly believe in that.

There have been situations in history where genocides have been ongoing. Has the UN ever made a mistake in the past? I think the member cited something regarding Rwanda with which I would agree.

Having made a mistake in the past, does that mean people should take it into their own hands unilaterally at a time when every action has a reaction not only with the immediate neighbours, but around the world?

We can quibble with the words. I think we all know what we are talking about when we talk about due process and established international law. There is a difference. I do not need proof when I see somebody slaughtered in the same manner that I need proof when I have to find some weapons in this situation.

The situation is that we have the time. We can take the time. I do not understand the colleagues in the House who seem eager for what reasons I do not understand to rush to the conclusion that the only resolution is military action as opposed to dialogue.

We have to be prepared to take more forceful action if it is necessary. That is not in dispute. However that is not the action that I hope and expect my government to take in this case.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, the Liberal Party is a big tent. It is very good that we are a big tent. It is very good that we are allowed to stand in a Parliament and express our views. The fact that another colleague of mine has a different opinion does not bother me. Perhaps their constituents are saying something different to them.

What does concern me is that we have the process in place at the UN and if the resolution of the UN goes forward, whatever it is, then I would stand with that without having the vote in the House.

This is my personal opinion. I do not speak for my party. If the situation was that the UN did not sanction any action but the United States wished to go unilaterally, and there was some discussion about whether Canada should join that action, that would be a situation where I would prefer a vote in the House.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to represent my constituents in this debate tonight.

I have never received as many e-mails, letters and faxes as I have over this past number of weeks. They increased after statements were made by my colleagues and when it became a little more ambiguous a few weeks ago about where exactly we stood. I have never received the same sentiment before in my riding.

It is interesting to hear differing visions and different comments from constituents of other members. They sound different than what the constituents in my riding are saying. This is the first time 100% of the people in my riding who have contacted me to date are saying the same thing. That is significant. It is something in which I personally believe. They are saying that we should wait until we have the approval of the only multilateral process that has been proven over time and in which we are engaged. That is the voice of the world today. This is the voice of international law and that is the UN.

From the time of Pearson, we have stood for something in this country. The values of Canada are with due process. There is no rush to go to war just because we can. There is no rush to go to war just because the weather may have changed in some other part or there may be something there.

Our Prime Minister has said to us that we need proof. He said it in a very charming way. The bottom line is we do need proof. Perhaps next week the presentations made at the UN will provide some proof. We do not have sufficient proof today. It is a fluid situation.

No one in my constituency is naive enough to think that if there are gases and weapons of mass destruction, if there is imminent threat and if people in another country are absolutely ignoring the UN wishes through resolution 1441 that we should not act. However it should not be a unilateral action. It should not be just because we have friends, allies and economic interests with the people south of the border with whom we have relations. That is not sufficient reason.

The idea of a pre-emptive strike is foreign to us and should be foreign to anyone in the world who wants peace. It is a system that we will continue in this century. Pre-emptive strikes; what a strange thing. I do not want to find out how smart the bombs are today. It is not important to me. It is important that Canadians can be represented in a parliament. It is important that I can flip on my television and see parliamentarians in England or people demonstrating in the streets around the world asking for due process to happen and saying not to rush to war. It is important to me that our allies respect that we have a voice in Canada that is separate and apart.

I live in southwestern Ontario. Most of the bilateral trade we share between two great nations is done through the bridges very close to my city. I understand the economic integration issues and the need for our countries to be supportive. I realize that is a consideration, but it is not the only consideration.

I stood at a peace rally on a very cold day with many other Canadians, as did many others in different cities. The peace rally was organized by the Muslim community. There are 30,000 Muslim Canadians living in my city of London, Ontario. They organized the rally together with multi-faith communities. The former Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church was a speaker. The United Church, the Anglican Church, the Jewish community and many multi-faith religions stood together. There were people from non-government organizations and immigrant organizations. People from Iraq, who are now Canadians and live in my city spoke. There were children, young, old and women. They all spoke about the need for us to take the time to make war the very last resort.

If inspectors need more time, we should give them more time. If there is a need for more inspectors, we should get more inspectors. It is certainly cheaper than the cost of one day's war. There is not a rush. This cannot take forever. I am one who would say that if the UN regrettably has sufficient proof, we have to take action and my government decides to take a stand in terms of being of some assistance in a multilateral action sanctioned by the United Nations, then I understand the need.

Some people in my riding who have contacted me over the past number of weeks have gone further than I have. They do not want war even if proof is there. That is not my stand. I do not think that is responsible. If we are a member nation of the United Nations, we have to take our place and pull our weight where we can.

When I was growing up my father was in the armed forces, the RCAF and before that the RAF, and I lived on military bases throughout my early education. I know what it means when a father or a parent goes away for months on a mission. I know the pride of our defence personnel and I know that they would serve with honour wherever they were sent. That is not the issue. The issue is how in this century we will deal with these situations.

About this time last year I went to Sierra Leone to help train some women to run for their parliamentary elections. We saw the ravages of war. It was a low tech war. I would hate to see the devastation of a high tech war. I know that there is human error. Even when we have incredibly efficient weapons like missiles, people get killed. I remember our former colleague, Mr. Axworthy, reminded us of the change over time and what actually happened in wars. Before it was military men and women who were the thousands of casualties. Now it is more often civilians.

I do not want to knock the United States. That is not the aim of my conversation with my colleagues tonight. However sometimes the United States seems to talk about short wars and quick wars. It is not over and done with after the bombs are dropped for the people whose economies are destroyed, whose homes are devastated, whose families are shattered and whose governments are in tatters with a parliamentary system that has to be re-established without transport or clean water.

There has been an ongoing situation in this country for many years, from the last time that there was a war in this area, where there have been economic sanctions with which we have agreed. People have still suffered and it has not turned the situation around.

I am here tonight to add my voice of my constituents to ensure that in my representative role I have told the House what they have told me and to say that there is a good process in place. This process would allow the proof that is needed for a decision to be made and it is this process that I hope our country will follow.

[Employment Insurance Act, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will not use my next six minutes. I will let somebody else take the time to contribute.

[Employment Insurance Act, January 29th, 2003]

Yes, and I have my financial hat on too. With my financial hat on, I must say to my hon. colleague that as it is written now, the bill would be very expensive. It would be coming out of a fund. However, I am saying that there is a need and I think that we can work toward this as a goal. I would like to see that coming very soon, but I am not in agreement with the way my friend's bill is currently written. However, I can assure the hon. member who sponsored the bill that as for the cause we can reach agreement over time with consultation.

Right now in Canada there is a void. What comes under the labour code? Only a couple of provinces are taking part. I have done some research. Apparently only six provinces in this country provide a short term period of unpaid leave when someone has extreme family responsibilities and/or emergencies and must provide for relatives. One of the problems I have with my friend's bill is that the definition of “relative” is pretty broad, but again, these are details and we can work on details.

The numbers of unpaid leave days under labour code protection right now are: three in New Brunswick; five in British Columbia; five, apparently soon to be doubled to ten, in Quebec; seven in Newfoundland and Labrador; ten in Ontario and twelve in Saskatchewan. If a person's mother or father has cancer, that leave will just not fix things.

One of the other areas I am concerned with is women working outside the home and the additional stress there will be if they have to quit a job. I am looking at something that still has a labour attachment, not a voluntary quitting. I think we add and stockpile stress in a home situation if we have to quit a job. We do not need that. Again, I think there are ways to work this out. All of us here can do things that are realistic, that can meet real needs inside families and that do not deprive workforces of highly skilled and trained individuals, including those men and women who must do caregiving in their homes. In fact, 81% of Canadians feel somewhat the same about this. When approached on this issue, they say that there should be a role for the federal government in this.

Now it is a temporary replacement, and I will be the devil's advocate here. I will argue that if I am the sick person, I am not entitled to the 52 weeks that this bill provides for the caregiver, with potential extensions, but quite substantially less than that. This is another issue that we will have to grapple with.

I am glad to have had the opportunity to participate today. I will be involved as this bill, or an alternate bill of the government, moves along. I suggest that we all work toward getting the issue resolved.

[Employment Insurance Act, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will take four minutes now although that does not give me enough time to say what I would like to say about the bill.

I am very pleased that we are having this debate. I believe in compassionate care. I believe that with an aging population our country will have a need for it. Our demographics show us that by 2011 our population over 65 will have increased by 23%.

Who will be giving care? Typically it will be women. Who are these women? They are working in homes right now. We have changed over time.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I should state for the record that the Romanow report was tabled the day before we tabled our own report. We did not have access to the Kirby and Romanow reports during our deliberations.

We certainly received evidence from people across the country that this was a high priority. What we did glean and put out was that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research was supported by Canadians. We also felt in our recommendations that it was important to support the program. I will direct the member opposite to the recommendations in this chapter that is specifically focused on health care.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's attendance and work at the committee. I point out recommendation 2 of the 49 recommendations in our report. I will read directly from the report because it is exactly on the point on which he has spoken. It says:

The federal government continue to focus on a balanced budget, with any surplus used to pay down its market debt. The government should consider the extent to which savings realized as a consequence of lower debt-interest costs should be spent on existing or new programs that have been identified as priorities for Canadians. Moreover, the government should undertake an ongoing review of federal expenditures with a view to monitoring continuously the activities that are priorities for Canadians in order that appropriate reallocation of spending occurs. Finally, spending increases should be limited to the rate of inflation and population growth.

Various departments have budgets and they spend. They hold onto programs that maybe are not as efficient. There needs to be new areas of spending because the priorities of Canadians have shifted.

Right now I would think that money gets taken away if they do not utilize it. We have to change that philosophy. If it is not efficient, if it is not producing results or if it is a lower priority and we have higher priorities, then we have to change that. We have to spend smartly. We do not just get to add and top up.

Two of the chapters at the beginning of the report did not contain recommendations. The first one was on the demographics of the country. With an aging population and looking forward into the future, we were trying to make short term and long term recommendations for the government because we will need either productivity gains or get resources in a smarter way, for instance, maybe encouraging Canadians to help save today for their retirements.

We know we will have health care for older populations down the way. The only way we will get the resources to pay for that is if we prioritize spending now and we start paying down debt so that when we do not have the $37 billion a year interest payment, we will be able to finance some of these very needed social programs.