House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2006, with 47% of the vote.
Minister Of Finance February 18th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
I would like to inquire today about the health of the finance minister. Yesterday we saw worrisome signs of amnesia when the finance minister expressed concern about the human deficit. He has forgotten that he is the one who hacked $3.5 billion from health care. He has forgotten that he is the one who slashed $1.5 billion from education.
My question for the Prime Minister is straightforward. Is the finance minister well?
Middle East February 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we are asking the U.S. to do it and they are blocking those initiatives.
Former key United States allies Bahrain, Qatar and Oman have joined Saudi Arabia and declared their airfields off limits to U.S. forces.
Will this declaration give the government cause to rethink its hasty support for bombing? Will the Prime Minister now call President Clinton to remove the U.S. veto that is crippling the secretary general's mission to Iraq?
Middle East February 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the United States representative on the security council has refused to sanction the diplomatic mission to Bagdhad by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Will the foreign affairs minister ensure that the Prime Minister picks up the phone immediately and asks President Clinton to remove U.S. obstacles to the United Nations brokered diplomatic proposal to allow weapons inspections and prevent the bombing of Iraq?
Employment February 12th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, 48,000 fewer jobs for young people. Student protests in Quebec against escalating education costs are the latest eruptions of frustration and worry among Canada's youth. No wonder when average student debt loads have climbed above $25,000. No wonder when Liberal policies have caused tuition fees to jump 31% since this government took office.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge today that a national system of grants must be at the heart of any serious commitment to providing the educational opportunities young people need in the new economy?
Employment February 12th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In the past six weeks more than 18,000 jobs have been wiped out; the latest, 700 at Inco. No wonder young people are worried about their future. No wonder when 48,000 fewer young people are working than this time two years ago.
How can the Prime Minister find it acceptable that 48,000 fewer young people are working today as a direct result of the Liberal government's policy?
Iraq February 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we did not get a land mine ban in Canada through the threat of force or by falling in line with the U.S. Protest is mounting from Canadians even within Liberal ranks. The former chief of staff of the UN peacekeeping force in Iraq described Canada's yes sir, yes sir, three bags full, sir as nauseating and nonsensical. Bombing will not solve the problem. Why will this government not uphold Canada's well earned reputation for creative diplomacy and effective multilateralism instead of recklessly abandoning it?
Iraq February 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
While Iraq is showing signs of openness, the U.S. insists on going to war. Canada must not be so narrow minded. In order to get Iraq to comply with the disarmament conditions, we must show good will and lift the sanctions that are crushing civilians. We must avoid war.
Is Canada prepared to promote a diplomatic solution based on the elimination of the sanctions?
Iraq February 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, General Lewis MacKenzie also opposes military aggression against Iraq, saying “as many as 5,000 Iraqi children under 5 are dying each month as a result of UN sanctions, and bombing Baghdad will only make matters worse”.
What further diplomatic measures have the Prime Minister and his foreign affairs minister taken in the last 72 hours to avert those senseless bombings?
Iraq February 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister justified a military intervention against Iraq by saying that Saddam Hussein is violating the ceasefire. Yet, in 1991, he stated that we should not take part in a war that is not fought under the flag of the United Nations.
Does the Prime Minister intend to follow the United Nations or the United States?
Middle East February 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the question of ongoing military and humanitarian crisis in Iraq merits very careful consideration, very careful consideration by all of us here as parliamentarians and very careful consideration by the Canadian people as a whole. Let us be clear, Canadians are a proud people with a distinguished history of providing leadership in seeking peaceful solutions to the world's penchants and the world's problems.
Let me say at the outset that the Canadian government has a duty to ensure a policy that is first consistent with our status as a sovereign, independent state. In that regard, it was a cause of concern to a lot of Canadians to hear the U.S. secretary of state today pronounce what the position of Canada was in regard to massive military intervention in Iraq.
Second, the Government of Canada has a responsibility to adopt a policy that can command the broadest possible degree of support within the international community.
Third, and perhaps most important, the government has a responsibility to adopt a policy which will be truly effective in solving the problem that confronts the world community and the people of Iraq today.
The view of the New Democratic Party is that massive military aggression against Iraq as proposed by the United States is insupportable on several counts. It is not now receiving and is unlikely to engender a broad measure of support internationally. It will result in the almost certain death or maiming of large numbers of innocent civilians.
Before elaborating on the reasons why we believe Canada should refuse to participate in this massive military bombing, I want to make two things very clear. First, the New Democratic Party fully acknowledges that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and a human rights abuser. Let there be no doubt about that. Second, the New Democratic Party is solidly on record as supporting, unequivocally, those UN resolutions which forbid Iraq from acquiring, manufacturing or using biological or chemical weapons. That any nation should obtain or deploy such weapons of mass destruction is deplorable. It is unacceptable. It is truly morally repugnant.
In our view—and I think we would do well to keep this in mind—the manufacture, proliferation or use of nuclear weapons is equally evil and unconscionable. Let us not lose sight of the global security threat and the global challenge which we face in that regard.
I want to outline at least five reasons why the New Democratic Party opposes the massive military action proposed by the United States. Let us be clear that the U.S. secretary of state has described the intervention as being substantial, sustained and heavy. That is the plan.
First, the diplomatic efforts to bring a peaceful resolution to this crisis simply have not been fully exhausted. Depicting the Iraqi leader as a tyrant and a despot, however accurate, however soul-satisfying it may be, does nothing to move us toward a solid resolution. In fact, it can be said that it detracts from our objective and, indeed, from our obligation.
What is our obligation? Let me suggest that our obligation is finding a way to secure Iraq's compliance with UN weapons inspections and the destruction of its deadly chemical and biological weapons, while at the same time alleviating the suffering of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who are victims of a prolonged campaign of economic sanctions.
Let us not forget that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have already died. It is estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations that one child dies every 10 minutes today in Iraq as a result of those sanctions.
I believe that the world wants Canada to show the kind of leadership that it did on the land mines ban issue. Let us remind ourselves, and do so with considerable pride, that Canada stepped out in front. Canada seized the challenge. Canada provided the leadership, not because the United States of America was urging us to do so, but in defiance of the United States, to put in place a land mines treaty ban.
I was delighted to be able to stand in this House and congratulate the Government of Canada for providing that leadership. I believe that the world wants Canada to once again provide that kind of leadership; not sit out in the shadows or hide in the weeds, but move into this vacuum to provide that kind of leadership again. Canadians expect no less of us.
That requires that we be far more aggressive in pursuing a policy whereby concessions of weapons inspection and destruction by Iraq would be met with a reasonable and enforceable set of goals and timetables for easing and eventually eliminating sanctions.
Surely the proposal advanced by the Russians that would allow for inspection of presently restricted presidential sites is worthy of careful consideration.
In return for demonstrations of goodwill, for concrete measures of progress, Iraq ought to be permitted to sell more oil in order to obtain food and medical supplies necessary for the very survival of the men, women and children in that country. Let us not forget that in the years after the second world war our objective was to limit the size and capabilities of the German and Japanese armed forces, not to deliberately promote famine and disease among the citizens of those countries.
Second, I believe that Canadians favour truly multilateral solutions to such international crises.
It is wrong to claim that the United States is heading a large international coalition. France and Russia, which sit on the UN Security Council, oppose the American proposal of military intervention. All 22 members of the League of Arab States also oppose it.
The vast majority of members of the international community oppose such action. Why? Because a military operation in the region could have unexpected and undesirable consequences.
The military offensive headed by the United States shows how important it is for the United Nations to have a standing army, one that is truly multilateral and independent.
Third, military aggression is unlikely to meet any of its intended strategic or political objectives. Surely it is notable that even former U.S. gulf war commander General Norman Schwarzkopf, known as Stormin' Norman, has voiced grave doubts about the wisdom of such an air attack.
U.S. led strikes may in fact merely solidify Saddam Hussein's grip on power, unite his population and only temporarily interfere with his weapons building program. Therefore we remain profoundly sceptical of the long term utility of such military intervention, particularly when we weigh the potential risks of heightened instability in the area.
Fourth, the claims of so-called pinpoint bombing and the limitation of collateral civilian damage is nonsensical military doublespeak. These euphemisms simply conceal the very real likelihood of massive loss of life and the maiming of thousands of civilians.
I want to share briefly an excerpt from a letter that arrived in my office today. It reads, “the smart bombs won't be any smarter this time”. There are those who support military action over diplomatic initiatives.
If it is indeed true that Saddam Hussein is stockpiling and concealing chemical and biological weapons, as it appears is the case, it is truly terrifying to imagine the impact that targeting missiles at such sites could have. The resultant release and the spread of lethal chemical substances into the surrounding area is surely too high a price to pay in human terms for the achievement of highly questionable results.
Fifth and finally, Canada should be seeking to adopt a position on this question which contributes to the reduction of international tensions instead of inflaming them. Our goal should surely be to broker peaceful solutions in the instance of such international crises. Canada should stake out a position independent of our southern neighbour, as it did so courageously in the instance of land mines.
I ask the House, is it beyond our imagination to conceive of a solution to this impasse which does not involve massive loss of life and damage to vital Iraqi infrastructure? I ask members of the House to reflect on the 600,000 Iraqi children which the United Nations tells us have died since the imposition of sanctions five years ago.
We read in today's press of the American objective to knock out the electricity generating stations which provide power to the people of Iraq. I ask my colleagues to reflect on the impact such an event recently had on the lives of so many of our constituents. Is this the kind of hardship that we are determined to inflict on a civilian population that has already endured so much suffering and pain both as a result of the policies of its own government and as a result of the regime of sanctions?
In conclusion, wise heads are right to counsel caution and careful reflection. This evening I implore the Prime Minister to intensify our efforts to achieve a diplomatic solution and to find through peaceful means a resolution to this terrible standoff. Canada should surely be on the side of those who seek to resolve this crisis through negotiation and common sense. There is nothing to be gained in the long run through a strategy of provocation and sabre rattling.
Let me finish by citing the words of another Canadian who wrote to me today: “The closing years of the millennium should not see yet another major armed conflict added to this century's baleful record. As a respected middle power, Canada should adhere to its well recognized role of peacekeeper in world affairs”.