Karen Redman

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in tonight's debate on the situation in Iraq. I have listened closely to the thoughtful debate that has progressed thus far.

There is no doubt this is a complex topic. As a Canadian parliamentarian with a healthy respect for democracy as well as human rights, Saddam Hussein's regime is as unimaginable to me as it is deplorable. There is no doubt that through the Iraqi dictator's penchant for war and weaponry he has become an undisputed global menace.

The Iraqi administration has an indefensible record. It has engaged in warfare against its neighbours. It has sponsored and sheltered terrorists. It has developed weapons of mass destruction and it has used these weapons on its own people. The Iraqi regime has consistently and repeatedly defied the authority of the United Nations Security Council.

UN inspectors did not have the opportunity to complete their work prior to their withdrawal in 1998. By all accounts, Saddam Hussein's regime has been developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. It is widely believed that the regime will soon have the capacity to build crude nuclear weapons. Iraq's dictator has a deplorable record of oppressing and violating the citizens of Iraq.

Clearly, Saddam Hussein poses a certain and rising threat to global security. There is no question, he must be disarmed. If diplomatic means are unsuccessful, military methods must be employed but these must be employed as a last resort.

How does Canada respond to this threat? What is our role and what are our responsibilities?

In my constituency of Kitchener Centre, residents are troubled by these unsettling times. The threat of terrorism is not new but it has never before been more relevant than it is today. The city I have the privilege of representing is shaped by immigrants from all parts of the globe and that includes citizens formerly from Iraq. To many of them, Canada is the ideal. Canada is a just society that holds promises of democracy, human rights, peace and freedom. I am proud of Canada's rich history as a member of this global community.

Canada's response to the situation in Iraq must be reflective of the fundamental Canadian foreign policy. Canada has a long-standing, unwavering commitment to promoting human security, including human rights, peacekeeping, humanitarianism and disarmament.

Multilateral cooperation is critical. Canada must continue to work with our allies and the United Nations to ensure the safety and security of Canadians and to ensure that the rule of international law is respected as well as enforced. Canada has a long history of helping to solve global problems and we will secure our place in North America and the world as a mature and confident country.

Canada has been steadfast in our efforts to right terrorism at home and abroad alongside our friend and ally the United States. Canada has consistently supported the U.S. attempts to contain Iraq. Canada has supported UNSCOM, the UN special commission charged with ensuring that Saddam was stripped of all weapons of mass destruction.

Throughout the past decade, Canadians have worked inside Iraq under the UN to gather information on Saddam's alleged nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs.

Further, Canada has a long tradition of being counted in when western values are challenged, from both world wars to Korea, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

At the same time, Canada does not endorse a pre-emptive strike against Iraq by the United States without the approval of the United Nations.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the United Nations can be a great force for good in the world and it is in all our interests to use the power of international institutions in this complex world.

A strong, clear resolution on Iraq, through the United Nations Security Council, provides the desired option for peaceful, legitimate resolution to the situation in Iraq. Of course we welcome Iraq's announcement to accept, albeit conditional, the return of the UN's weapons inspectors. However, in spite of the small concession, we are unconvinced that Iraq will adopt a new course of cooperation.

Iraq has a long history of obstruction and failures to comply with Security Council resolutions. The government has stressed its willingness to back firm enforcement of the new United Nations Security Council resolution. The resolution must require Iraq to accept full and unfettered weapons inspection and set out consequences for failure to do so.

This is Saddam Hussein's opportunity to comply with his international obligations. We cannot compromise the integrity and the credibility of the United Nations in favour of unilateral action. The risk is simply too great.

Canadians are proud of our longstanding tradition in foreign policy which has been to pursue and promote dialogue and understanding among the peoples of the world and to seek political and diplomatic solutions, even in the face of imminent conflict.

By continuing to act consistently with those values, world peace and security will be enhanced and international institutions strengthened. The Canadian goal is shared throughout the international community to rid the Iraq regime of weapons of mass destruction. Military action must not be the first course of action.

The rightful role of government is the protection of human rights. The United Nations provides an appropriate arena in which Canada can join our allies and ensure the protection and preservation of our freedom as well as world security.

[Species at Risk Act, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a $10 million funding plan to fund over 160 stewardship projects across Canada.

These recovery projects will engage more than 400 individuals and organizations to help more than 200 federally listed species, as well as 80 provincially listed species. This is the third year funds have been provided to community based projects through the habitat stewardship program.

I would also point out that for every federal dollar, $1.70 of individual money is invested in this worthwhile project.

[Catholic Family Counselling Centre, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me today in extending congratulations to Catholic Family Counselling Centre in Kitchener-Waterloo which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.

In 1952 the agency's sole counsellor helped 100 individuals and families. Today the centre boasts a dedicated staff of more than 50 employees who have helped more than 15,000 individuals and families this year alone.

Catholic Family Counselling Centre in Kitchener-Waterloo is a not for profit professional counselling agency whose team of passionately committed staff and volunteers sees its work as an expression of Christian caring through promoting well-being within individuals, families and the community. The non-denominational agency works hard to ensure everyone in Kitchener will enjoy a strong and healthy community for the next 50 years.

I extend warm wishes to Catholic Family Counselling Centre in Kitchener-Waterloo as it celebrates 50 years of caring.

[Canada Labour Code, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would respectfully raise the issue of relevancy in that speaker's discourse.

[Species at Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I note with a great deal of sadness that despite the fact that the party opposite talks about wanting to respect Canadians, 98% of whom say they want species at risk protected, it found it could not support the bill last night at report stage and is saying it will not support it tonight.

The hon. member opposite makes a very astute observation that greenhouse gas emissions and acid rain are indeed things that the federal government, in its role, needs to participate on, on behalf of all Canadians, including the people of Quebec, because pollution does not ask for a visa, whether or not it comes across our border.

The very issue that other colleagues in the Alliance Party take umbrage at is the fact that the legislation actually builds on the good laws and the great action not only of Canadians but of provinces and territories.

My challenge for my hon. colleague opposite would be to somehow reconcile these facts that the government agrees that the people of Quebec and the province of Quebec have done some very forward thinking things and that rather than usurp them we are looking to add on to it and bolster them, so that if there is a province, a territory or a people where that is not happening we would be there to backfill.

I am having a hard time reconciling what the member opposite says he desires and yet his inability to support, in this very good piece of legislation, exactly what he has asked for.

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as we have heard repeatedly in the House, and certainly it has received wide media attention and has been the subject of many polls across Canada, species at risk legislation is something that around 98% of Canadians do support. I am looking across the floor at some colleagues who were members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I know the public message they have given, and the evidence of the people who participated as committee members, is that they support species at risk legislation.

The reason for compensation and the wording in the bill, namely the Minister of the Environment and the government “shall” make regulations, is that the government believes it is one of the necessary tools in its kit as it goes forward in implementing the legislation.

Members of the Alliance are often quick to point out the American experience. Its legislation is about 10 years ahead of ours. We have learned from that legislation. We have learned that if we make the legislation too commanding and controlling, we could end up spending all our resources and staff time in committee rooms or, in the American case, many courtrooms. Lawyers would make a lot of money but it would do very little to protect species at risk.

The Canadian approach, which the government has taken, in trying to protect species at risk is by enlisting co-operative participation and enlarging on the existing goodwill of farmers, ranchers and fishers.

We heard from mining industry and large forestry users--

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you clarify for me if I am on questions and comments on the amendment or on the speech of the previous speaker?

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague across the way who was an active member on the committee. While I would acknowledge that there are times when he certainly does more than lift his weight, I would take exception to his characterization of the Minister of the Environment.

I would ask the member to react to a friend of ours who was well known to the committee, Stewart Elgie, who today in the paper said:

--[the Minister of the Environment] who succeeded in doing something that his predecessors could not getting an endangered species law passed....

[The Minister of the Environment] did it by emphasizing that protecting endangered wildlife requires not just the stick but also the carrot. His department worked tirelessly to ensure the Bill reflected this principle including securing over $50 million per year in funding to implement the bill....

The species at risk working group took out an ad this week in the Hill Times saying that “the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the Liberal Caucus,” as well as the Minister of the Environment, are to be thanked “for making improvements to the proposed legislation. Let's get on with the business of protecting species at risk.”

My hon. colleague pointed out that it is not a simple issue and it is not a simply structured bill. It is a bill that invites co-operation by landowners and provinces and territories.

When he talks about compensation, it undercuts, in my view, a lot of the excellent work done by the Liberal rural caucus. How would he propose to bring in a regime that we in committee talked about, where PFRA lands would be included and where we would look at farmers and fishers?

He seems to talk about the regulatory system as something that would be easy to come up with. I would challenge him to say what kind of system he could come up with that would be fair to everyone without excluding someone who should be compensated.

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague who, as he pointed out quite rightly, was a very hardworking member of our environment committee which dealt with this bill.

This is the third incarnation of the legislation. I had the privilege of working on Bill C-33 which predates my hon. colleague across the way.

It is interesting that the member would reference that some of the legal opinion was a bit curious, because I happen to know that he himself is a lawyer. It has been my experience both inside and outside government that when two lawyers are in a room there are often three or four opinions. He seems to be subscribing to some kind of lockstep assuredness in the species at risk legislation.

Clearly what the government has done and the stand we have taken is that co-operation should always be the first approach to protect species at risk. That is how the bill is structured. The government acknowledges that species at risk are protected on the land, not in the classrooms nor in the courtrooms of Canada.

The member made a couple of comments that I also found very curious. He seemed to infer that it does not include all of Canada. That is tacitly wrong. The bill certainly will work in partnership with aboriginal leaders as well as territorial and provincial governments but it will cover 100% of Canada.

It is interesting that while on the one hand he acknowledges the strength and the co-operative efforts that were made in the committee, on the other hand he criticizes the government when it reacts in a progressive way, in a manner that is attentive not only to the witnesses but to the committee work. Of the 125 amendments that came to the House, 70 were accepted because they clearly strengthened the bill with respect to transparency and accountability.

Would my hon. colleague like to comment on the stewardship program? This again goes back to the basis of co-operation, the basis of invitation to Canadians that they would continue to do the activities they are doing right now. I point out that the $45 million that was earmarked is indeed being spent. There are programs right across Canada and $10 million was spent this year on 160 local projects in partnership with local conservation associations which are protecting 208 species as we speak.

[Question No. 160, June 11th, 2002]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.