Mr. Speaker, I want to express my views on the tragic events that made so many victims from 1914 to 1925, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and that so deeply affected the—
Lost her last election, in 2006, with 39% of the vote.
Public Safety Act, 2002 May 3rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I want to express my views on the tragic events that made so many victims from 1914 to 1925, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and that so deeply affected the—
Public Safety Act, 2002 May 3rd, 2002
Public Safety Act, 2002 May 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the prospect of biological weapons being used, whether it be by states, criminals or terrorists, horrifies and repulses all civilized people. Today the very idea of deliberately propagating diseases via bacteria, viruses, or toxins that affect humans, animals or plants is considered, justifiably, a taboo and is condemned by international treaty law and customary international law.
Since 1925, the Geneva Protocol has prohibited bacteriological warfare, in other words, biological weapons. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, better knows by its acronym, BTWC, completely prohibits the possession of such weapons. The BTWC, which was negotiated in 1972 and came into effect in 1975, was the first worldwide convention to prohibit an entire category of weapons of mass destruction. It set a universal standard and is an important pillar of international peace and security.
As I mentioned, Canada signed and ratified the BTWC in 1972 and strongly supports the convention. Canada attaches great importance to full compliance with the provisions of the convention and supports fully its purposes and provisions. To our profound regret, I remember well last summer, negotiations for such a protocol collapsed in July after seven years of hard work, denying the world truly its best chance to achieve a mechanism to impede the development and spread of biological weapons.
At the review conference, many other countries indicated that in light of the events of September 11, which subsequently followed and in light of subsequent bioterrorism attacks using anthrax, they were in the process of revising or supplementing their own legislation relevant to biological weapons.
National enforcement efforts cannot substitute for an international compliance mechanism aimed at preventing the development of biological weapons. It was that compliance mechanism that we were close too when it collapsed with the withdrawal of one of the major countries.
In themselves, national efforts are still valuable and necessary. Export and import controls, licensing, domestic inspection, verification and policing all complement and buttress the global ban on bio-weapons.
Article 4 of the BTWC would require state parties, in accordance with their own constitutional processes, to take measures to prohibit and prevent the development, the production, stockpiling, acquisition or retention of banned substances and articles in their own domestic territories, jurisdiction or control. In view of the collapse of the protocol negotiations in July and then later of the terrorist threat which emerged only two months later, it is now appropriate to go beyond the strict requirements of that convention and to supplement our own existing Canadian legislation with an act which specifically prohibits both biological weapons and related agents.
The biological and toxin weapons convention implementation act, which I have been calling the BTWC for obvious reasons, would put Canada at the forefront of these efforts to prevent biological weapons proliferation and bioterrorism. It will allow Canada to fulfill its obligations under the BTWC better because we will have done domestically what we had failed do so internationally by ensuring that the convention's ban is be respected not only by the Government of Canada but also by individuals, organizations and institutions in Canada, and that is very important.
The vast majority of the biological agents and of the types of equipment which may be employed in the manufacture of biological weapons are dual use; that is to say, these substances and articles have legitimate, even vital roles in fields like science, pharmaceuticals, medicines and agriculture. Likewise bio-defence programs intended to develop detecting devices or vaccines, antidotes and protective gear to defend against biological warfare attack require biological agents and equipment. Dual use agents and equipment are therefore essential to our health, prosperity and security and also for the advancement of knowledge. That is why it gets to be a somewhat intricate matter.
However the BTWC recognizes the dual use nature of these substances and articles by allowing articles which have prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes and equipment not designed for hostile purposes. They will continue obviously to be allowed and these exemptions for legitimate use are preserved in the legislation we are speaking about today.
To give Canadians assurance that biological and toxin agents and dual use equipment are not turned to evil purposes or diverted from their intended peaceful purposes, regulations are required. Such regulations would also increase the confidence in other countries that Canada is harbouring no official or unofficial biological weapon programs and encourage compliance elsewhere with the convention. Reciprocal confidence reinforces itself, which again contributes to peace and stability both for Canadians and worldwide.
Subsequently, last December in Geneva at the fifth BTWC review conference, the Canadian delegation strove to promote an outcome which would have contributed to the convention's integrity and vitality by building bridges between regional groups, by advocating an enhanced review process, and by working for the adoption of new measures to strengthen the convention. That included a viable way forward to resume negotiations for what I mentioned earlier, the multilateral, legally binding compliance mechanism for the convention. It is therefore again unfortunate that the review conference was unable to achieve that outcome last December.
Let me assure the House that Canada has not given up its efforts to reinforce the global ban on germ weapons. We look forward to the review convention's resumption this coming November. We will indeed continue our efforts, as we have in the past, and we will work with other countries that are trying, like us, to accomplish the same aim.
The BTWC implementation act will therefore provide the legal basis to create a licensing regime for more complete control of biological substances and articles. It will also permit the establishment of a responsible authority and will set out the powers of inspectors charged with enforcing the act. It has been very carefully crafted to ensure that Canadian procedures will be compatible with any eventual international mechanism so that we will not have to go back and redo the process.
While the licensing regime and regulations should be rigorous, they must not be excessively burdensome for the legitimate users of biological agents. Indeed, we expect that the process of elaborating regulations and of establishing this new responsible authority and inspectorate will require intensive study and consultation with many sectors, including industry, farming, universities and medical, scientific and research sectors, all places where these agents may be used for very legitimate purposes.
Given that these are technical questions, it is important to get them right. A single solution will not work. The degree of control and safety required for a containment facility where highly contagious diseases are studied will obviously not work for a research institute doing work on low-risk pathogens.
This legislation will make Canada and the world safer. It will prevent the development and proliferation of biological weapons around the world. It will show that Canada is committed to fighting terrorism. At the same time, it demonstrates our active support of the BTWC and a multilateral approach based on rules, non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament. This is in line with the role that Canada has always played to increase co-operation for security. For this reason, I propose that we pass it quickly.
Tax Credit May 1st, 2002
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind use of the word charming but I do think there was a little more meat to my response than the word charming would indicate.
That is to say it is not just warm and fuzzy people to people contacts. It is indeed some very strong economic, business, government research and cultural links. Those are the kinds of charming links that create a set of dynamics that produce very strong working relationships.
With regard to the World Health Organization, Canada fully supports Taiwan's access to all of its programs, all of the health protection and promotion available under the current circumstances. In no way do we block nor did we ever block access by many people in that country who need the services that are provided. They are currently able to access health information from the WHO. Canada would support a consensus on Taiwan's participation in the WHO.
Tax Credit May 1st, 2002
Madam Speaker, I want to share with the member the policy of the government to date.
Canada remains encouraged by the continuing process of democratization in Taiwan, characterized most recently by free, open and peaceful elections in the legislative assembly, the Yuan. However, in keeping with our one China policy, Canada does not have diplomatic relations with the Republic of China.
Canada's one China policy is flexible enough to allow us to establish and maintain solid cultural, economic and individual ties with Taiwan. Canadian cultural and trade activity is evidence of these unofficial ties that are growing steadily.
Canadian companies continue to enjoy the benefits of our strong economic links, particularly in the high tech, aerospace, biotech, agrifood and environmental sectors. The Canadian trade office in Taipei has a trade and investment team made up of five Canadian trade commissioners supported by eight locally engaged commercial officers and assistants. All of them work to support Canadian companies in one of the most dynamic markets in the Asia-Pacific region.
The National Research Council of Canada maintains one of its most important R and D relationships in Asia with Taiwan's National Science Council. This year actually marks the fifth anniversary of a memorandum of understanding on scientific co-operation between Canada and Taiwan.
Canadian culture is also front and centre with shows and exhibits ranging from the Royal Winnipeg Ballet to contemporary video artists from Quebec. We also have the Canadian Education Centre in Taipei which for many years has been successfully promoting Canadian higher education to Taiwanese.
All of this has been made possible through the sustained efforts on the part of Canadians who have been working to develop strong ties with the people of Taiwan. By working within the framework of our one China policy, we will continue to develop stronger economic, cultural and people to people ties with Taiwan.
Canada is not the only country with a one China policy, and we did not invent the concept. Even today, the Government of Taiwan continues to adhere officially to this principle. The fact is that there is no mechanism allowing a country to officially recognize both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, as Taiwan persists in wanting to be called.
We believe it is in the best interests of all for both sides of the Taiwan Strait to resolve their differences amicably. Canada continues to urge both Taipei and Beijing to engage in constructive dialogue in the resolution of those differences. Our concerns about the threat of military confrontation have been stressed to both sides along with our strong appeal for a peaceful and negotiated settlement.
Mountain Pine Beetle April 30th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to the member and I have attempted to convey the position of the Canadian government as articulated in June 1999 and more recently in the House for the minister. It has been acknowledged as a horrendous event in history but I do not believe, as has been conveyed by the member, that the only way to move forward is to go down the road that he has proposed.
I believe that Canada is pursuing the development of positive and productive bilateral relations with all countries in that region, including Armenia and Turkey. A stable and prosperous region characterized by peaceful and strong bilateral relations will undoubtedly be beneficial for all of them, including Canada. In my view that is the way we will accomplish stability and reconciliation rather than the use of certain verbiage.
Mountain Pine Beetle April 30th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question concerning the position of the Government of Canada regarding the tragic events that so greatly affected the Armenian community in 1915.
As he has mentioned, on many occasions our government has expressed with great compassion its heartfelt sympathy for the sufferings of the Armenian people at that time. As he may recall, we have done so frequently in the House, and in other messages and on other occasions.
I would especially like to mention the personal message from the Prime Minister of Canada to the Canadian Armenian community on the occasion of the anniversary of the Armenian tragedy of 1915.
The hon. member mentioned that on April 18 the current Minister of Foreign Affairs referred specifically to two points that, in my view, constitute a sincere, appropriate and pertinent response to the member's question concerning the government's position on this tragedy. I will elaborate quickly on two points.
First, the House adopted a motion in 1996 on the Armenian tragedy recognizing the week of April 20 to April 27 each year as a week of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one another.
Second, following extensive consultation, the position of the Government of Canada on these events was stated by the hon. member for Halton on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time in a statement to the House in which he said:
We remember the calamity afflicted on the Armenian people in 1915. This tragedy was committed with theintent to destroy a national group in which hundreds of thousands of Armenians were subject to atrocities whichincluded massive deportations and massacres. May the memory of this period contribute to healing wounds as well as to reconciliation of present day nations and communities and remind us all of our collective duty to work together toward world peace.
As the member can see, we share the remembrance of the sufferings of this painful period and we attach great importance to ensuring that this human tragedy remains part of our collective memory and is not forgotten by future generations.
In closing, the tragic events of 1915 remind us more than ever that we need to continue to strive to promote tolerance and reconciliation among peoples so that the horrors of the past, like the tragedy suffered by the Armenian people, are never repeated.
Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture April 18th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite--Patrie proposing that the government take the necessary measures for Canada to ratify the inter-American convention to prevent and punish torture.
It cannot be disputed that the aims of this convention are laudatory. Canada has repeatedly and unequivocally denounced the heinous crime of torture. Its use is condemned in numerous international instruments. Recognition for the need of a comprehensive global instrument led to the adoption of the United Nations convention on torture.
The scope of this instrument is impressive as it pulls together the references to torture in various other instruments, provides a definition of torture, establishes a complaint mechanism and prescribes measures for education, prevention and international co-operation.
Canada's opposition to torture long predates the adoption of the United Nations convention on torture. As a party to that convention Canada has taken and continues to take significant measures to prevent and punish any acts of torture.
Torture is prohibited by law in Canada and no exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification for its use. Torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment occurs in Canada only in aberrational situations and never as a matter of policy. When it does occur victims are entitled to various remedies, including compensation.
Although allegations of torture in Canada are extremely rare Canadian police officers found guilty of any form of misconduct, including abuse of power or excessive use of force, are subject to the same laws that apply to all other residents of Canada.
Complaint mechanisms which exist for federal and provincial police forces ensure that a citizen may exercise the right to complain about any officer's conduct to an independent public body. Canada has also recognized the confidence of the United Nations committee against torture to receive and process individual complaints.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada facilities have been visited by organizations such as the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, the UN special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants and the Canadian Council for Refugees. At the request of the Government of Canada the inter-American commission on human rights visited Canada in the fall of 1997. The commission met privately with detainees in facilities in Toronto and Montreal and also observed detention review hearings. The commission concluded that the immigration detention centres complied with standards for detention.
I will turn specifically to the Organization of American States convention on torture. There is one historical reality that must be appreciated in any consideration of Canada's position on the inter-American convention to prevent and punish torture, namely that Canada did not belong to the OAS 17 years ago when the convention was negotiated.
This in itself would not normally prevent Canada from becoming a party to the instrument, but it does have an impact upon the content of the instrument that is negotiated. In fact it did not prevent Canada from becoming a party to two OAS 1948 conventions regarding civil and political rights for women. As a non-participant in the process of elaborating this convention we were not afforded the opportunity to communicate our concerns and have them taken into consideration as part of the normal give and take of such negotiations. It is a simple fact but one which has a direct impact upon our current concerns with respect to elements of the convention.
It cannot be said that Canada is averse to commitment when it comes to human rights instruments as we are a party to many other such instruments, including all of the major human rights instruments of the United Nations.
Canada was actively involved in the negotiation of the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment at the time that the OAS torture convention was being negotiated. Negotiations on the UN convention commenced well before negotiations on the OAS treaty and continued concurrently with the OAS negotiations.
The UN convention entered into force in June 1987 with 20 state parties. In contrast the OAS convention entered into force in February 1987 with two state parties. Some 15 years later the UN convention has 126 parties, including 21 OAS members while the OAS convention only has 16 parties.
It is generally accepted that the United Nations convention on torture provides higher standards and stronger protections than the OAS convention. Canada's approach is to invest our efforts in the effective implementation of the stronger human rights instruments rather than in the ratification of a weaker convention that may ultimately compete with and thereby dilute the strength of the existing UN convention against torture.
In addition, concerns reside around the OAS convention being so broadly framed and the language so imprecise that it makes it difficult to ascertain what would be the exact nature of Canada's obligations should a decision be taken to proceed toward accession. The Government of Canada could not ratify or accede to an international instrument without first determining the exact nature of the resulting obligations, and that these obligations would be capable of implementation in all jurisdictions.
At the international level, Canada is strongly supporting the special reporter on torture and other initiatives looking into violence against women, extra-legal executions, torture, as well as cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment going on in some countries. We think there should be a mechanism ensuring regular visits to detention centers, especially when there are allegations of torture. To this end, we strongly support an optional protocol to the UN convention against torture.
It is also important to ensure that, wherever it happens, torture does not go unpunished. This is why Canada has taken a leadership role in the negotiation and ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The international criminal court, which will be established on July 1, 2002, is only one way to ensure that torture, even when carried out by people in a position of power, does not go unpunished.
I must emphasize that Canada's non-adherence to the inter-American convention to prevent and punish torture does not detract in any way from our solid commitment to the highest human rights standards both in the Americas and globally.
Indeed Canada has shown itself to be a strong and constant supporter of the inter-American human rights system and will continue to be so regardless of whether we are party to this particular instrument. Similarly Canada is committed to the prevention and punishment of all acts of torture and will continue its efforts toward a consistent, effective global response to these crimes.
Pest Control Products Act April 15th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, our decision to vote against a resolution to send an observer mission to the region has indeed attracted particular attention. I can assure the House that the decision was not taken lightly given Canada's traditional support for the commission on human rights, the respect we have for the high commissioner, and the gravity of the situation in the region.
Our decision reflected the serious concerns we had concerning the nature of that resolution and the likely impact that such an observer mission and this resolution would have on the search for peace in the region. Like others, including the U.K., Germany and Russia, which abstained, we believed that the scope and mandate of the mission were not properly defined. Our position reflected our considered assessment of the prospects of success. We believe, in the current political context, the UN Security Council is the most appropriate body to deal with those issues related to the maintenance of peace and security.
Pest Control Products Act April 15th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby--Douglas for his question. It is difficult in four minutes to address all of his concerns. He has had more experience than I in doing so.
We strongly support the initiative right now of President Bush and the discussions which Secretary of State Colin Powell has had with Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat. These meetings have not resulted in an agreement but they are a welcome sign that both sides may be looking for a way out of this deadly confrontation in which Israelis and Palestinians are trapped. I urge them to do so.
Our ambassador to the UN, Paul Heinbecker, stated when he spoke to the UN Security Council on April 8:
That spiral of violence is threatening peace and stability well beyond the confines of the current fighting. Peace in the Middle East is everyone's business.
I turn to the UN Commission on Human Rights which at present is sitting in Geneva seized with a number of draft resolutions concerning the conflict in the Middle East, in particular, their consequences on human rights. Some of these drafts contain language which is extreme and one sided. It often asks the commission to do tasks which are not in its mandate and which it is ill-equipped to perform.
I should like to address certain misunderstandings which appear to prevail with respect to some of the criticisms of Canada's action at the human rights commission. Our voting is guided by the fundamental principles of our Middle East policy. I remind the House that these principles have been endorsed by successive governments and have served Canada well.
To have our support the resolutions should reflect fundamental principles of human rights law. They must be consistent with the treaties, agreements and UN jurisprudence which Canada supports and which underlie the negotiations between the parties to the conflict. They should not undermine the peace process or single out one party unfairly or indulge in inflammatory rhetoric. We take account of the voting intentions of like-minded member states although our decision is always our own.
The upheaval and bitterness provoked by the ever more violent confrontation in the region has created a more than usual emotional climate in the commission's deliberations this year. We are examining all resolutions closely. The Canadian delegation to the commission is working with vigilance to modify or oppose unhelpful resolutions. Our aim at the commission is consistent with our policy for the region, which is an end to violence and a return to dialogue and negotiations.