Andrew Telegdi

[Iraq, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I much would have preferred to have Kosovo under the UN. It could not be and we went with NATO, but it fell in the particular sphere of the alliance.

All I can say is that in both cases if we look at what happened when we went to the United Nations, we had much broader support. I think that is the kind of support we are looking for in trying to deal with a very sensitive region of the world, in trying to deal with the situation in Iraq. I think we have to work and do our best to have the legitimacy of the United Nations, because it is not just a battle against Iraq. The battle against terrorism still goes on and the more people we have in the coalition the more we are--

[Iraq, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I spoke in the House on Afghanistan. I spoke on what we were doing in Afghanistan and why we had to fight there. I was one of the first people to speak in terms of engaging in Kosovo and being part of that, but if ultimately we are going to create the kind of world where we have multilateral force, we have to move in the direction of the legitimacy of the United Nations. Because one thing is clear: If we are going to fight terror and terrorism we can only fight it if it is broadly based. So to the extent that we can engage under that umbrella, and I think we can, then we are going to be successful.

Also, it is not good enough. Now we can look at Afghanistan and see how difficult it is to establish a working regime and how unstable that particular part of the world is. It does not come easily. We cannot go in there and wipe out and destroy a country and expect to have it functioning in a civilized fashion in short order. It will take a long time.

[Iraq, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that it is a very interesting night listening to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and a former minister of external affairs and former prime minister debate the issue of Iraq.

When we talk about Iraq we are talking about a regime that is ruled by a brutal dictator. There is no question about that. He has victimized his people for all too many years. He is not alone in the world, unfortunately. There are quite a few of them. We can find them in North Korea and Libya. There can be questionable regimes in Syria and all over the world.

If that became the reason why we could take unilateral action against any member state, then the whole rationale for the United Nations would be undone. I agree with the position of our government that we want the legitimacy of the United Nations in taking any action against Iraq. Any unilateral action or action by just a couple of nations could be quite destructive to world order and quite destructive to the future.

It was about a year ago that we in the House debated the events of 9/11, which really shook everybody on the North American continent, particularly our friends in the United States. One of the remarkable things to come out of 9/11 was an unprecedented coalition that came together to fight terrorism.

It seems to me that by beating the drums of war Saddam Hussein replaces Osama bin Laden as world enemy number one. The more there is talk about the Americans taking unilateral action, the more the coalition, which has really been unprecedented, has been squandered.

Not until very recently have we seen the debate in the United States starting to take shape at the political level in the U.S. Congress and U.S. Senate. Questions are being raised about the wisdom of pursuing the policy of “either you are with us or you are against us.” I, for one, like many of my constituents, am very concerned that we have to make a black and white choice.

Unfortunately the world is not that simple. There are conditions that create people like Saddam Hussein. There are conditions that create people like Osama bin Laden. Saddam Hussein was a former ally of the United States in its war against Iran. Osama bin Laden was armed with weapons by the United States in terms of having him fight Soviet aggressions in Afghanistan.

The point I am making is that the United States took unilateral action in those cases. It made those decisions, but in the long term that did not serve their own security or our collective security very well.

When President George Bush Sr. engaged in Desert Storm, he did so with a coalition, and the former prime minister mentioned that. When I look at the present leadership in the United States, it is ironic that it is Colin Powell, the man with the military experience, the man who was a professional soldier, who is the one who is calling for multilateral action. He is calling for caution.

One of the issues that has disturbed many people in this modern warfare and the way we fight it is the incredible damage done to civilians. It is almost like war has become antiseptic. We fight from 50,000 feet up in the sky. Unfortunately the vast majority of victims are women and children. It was almost like when we were in the war in Kosovo. President Clinton stated, and it was his policy, that he could not stand to have any of the soldiers coming back in body bags the way that tens of thousands of body bags came back from Vietnam. It made it necessary that they could accept great losses on the ground but they could not accept significant losses of the military.

The people of Iraq have suffered greatly since Desert Storm. We all know that Saddam Hussein is not hurt by the sanctions. The people who are hurt by the sanctions are the women, the children, the people, the civilian population of Iraq. I think that is important to keep in mind.

I will go back to the Kosovo example. We could have reduced the amount of civilian casualties if we had been willing to engage the enemy on the ground, if we had been willing to roll in the tanks. We found the prospects of losses to the military totally unacceptable.

As we engage in peacekeeping, in peacemaking, now and in the future, I think we will have to place some value on the lives that are destroyed by the new age of antiseptic war that has been waged.

It is important for us as a country. We are a soft power. We are not like the Americans, who are very powerful. I think the Minister of National Defence put it very well when he said that unilateral power is a power-based system, whereas a multilateral, rules-based system is for those countries that are collectively, not individually, strong.

As we face the challenge before us, we have to look down the road and take note. How do we conduct a regime change so we do not unsettle a whole region? One way to do it is to make sure that the people of the region are onside, that the other countries of the region are onside. I submit that we have a much better chance of doing that if we look to a multilateral resolution versus unilateral, trilateral or bilateral action on this issue.

I hope that the debate going on in the United States right now is going to lead to a multilateral approach under the umbrella and the legitimacy of the United Nations.

[Main Estimates, 2002-2003, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting with the government.

[The Middle East, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Paul's.

It is with a heavy heart that I rise in the House today to join in the debate on the escalating conflict between the Palestinian and Israeli people in the Middle East. This conflict has spanned some six decades and taken or destroyed the lives of many thousands of mostly innocent people from both communities, people who are simply trying to live normal lives in very abnormal circumstances.

There are some commonly accepted reasons that explain how the ongoing cycle of violence began and why it continues today. From the perspective of the Israelis, for whom the spectre of the Holocaust and hostile Arab armies bent on their destruction lies within living memory, this conflict represents a struggle to survive.

Despite their military power they still feel isolated, vulnerable and surrounded by a sea of enemies. Terrorist attacks on Israel harden the hearts of those who want peace now and strengthen the resolve and cause of those who do not.

For Palestinian people who have been disenfranchised by the events of history and international political forces beyond their control, this is a struggle to regain their homeland, their pride and dignity as an independent nation.

The creation of Israeli settlements and incursions of the Israeli military into their communities on the West Bank and Gaza Strip engenders feelings of resentment and hopelessness for a peaceful resolution in those who pray for peace and adds fodder to the fires of anger of those who do not.

This undertaking gives no solace to those who have been caught up in the fear and horror of living through a lifetime of war. The inability of the people who share the region of Palestine to come to a peaceful resolution to their conflict, despite the assistance and intervention of the world's great powers, represents one of the great tragedies of modern history and one of the most significant failures in the realm of diplomacy. It reflects a stubborn unwillingness born from suffering on both sides to let go of past injustices, real or perceived, and to live and let live. In a real sense it is a failure of all humanity.

Both communities contain opposing factions with conflicting political agendas. Each contains people who believe that encouraging or facilitating the ongoing conflict is advantageous to fulfilling their agendas. They do not want resolution and peace but rather support an armed confrontation whose final outcome is the total eradication of the other. While I believe that they represent the small percentage of the people in the area, their radical actions have had a destabilizing impact that is out of proportion to their numbers.

There are many more people in these communities who yearn for peace. Their voices are being heard less and less these days. Events such as terrorist attacks like suicide bombings by Palestinians and political assassinations by the Israeli military have the effect of both creating and perpetuating anger, fear and hatred in many people who would otherwise genuinely seek peace.

It is with a sense of irony that I take part in this debate tonight. My life has in a strange twist of fate crossed paths with the conflict in the Middle East once before.

The Hungarian revolution exploded on October 23, 1956. The heroes of the Hungarian revolution, with its freedom fighters, teenagers and pre-teenagers, had many martyrs who used molotov cocktails or whatever they could find to fight Soviet armour.

The Israeli attack backed by France and England on October 29, 1956 against Egypt to gain control over the Suez Canal diverted world attention from the tragic Hungarian struggle and allowed the Soviet destruction of the Hungarian revolution. The Suez crisis brought the world to the brink of a world war.

This tragic time spawned one of Canada's finest hours. Under the leadership of Lester B. Pearson, then Canadian secretary of state for external affairs, Canada helped to put together an international peacekeeping force under the United Nations flag to defuse the Suez crisis. Ironically, Hungary is free and at peace while the Middle East conflict once again threatens world peace.

It is ironic that I who was a ten year old Hungarian boy at the time of the Hungarian revolution and the Suez crisis in 1956, one who became one of 200,000 refugees, one who lived in a Jewish refugee camp in Austria, now as a Canadian member of parliament partake in this debate on a Middle East crisis that once again threatens the peace of the world.

I fully support the idea that there should be an immediate resolution to the Middle East conflict and note that Canada has publicly called for the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian controlled areas viewing these actions as helpful to the peace process. We have also called for the cessation of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks by Palestinian militants.

Further, I support the fundamental tenet of the Canadian Middle East policy which is to encourage both parties to work toward peace through a negotiated settlement. We have called upon both sides to immediately move to a meaningful ceasefire and to work toward implementing the Tenet plan and the Mitchell recommendations with the aim of resuming negotiations for a political settlement as set out in United Nations Security Council resolution 1402.

Our efforts in this realm are well meant and need to become a reality. However, considering the escalation of hostilities in the region over the past 18 months, the status quo is definitely no longer an acceptable option.

The time has come for Canada to step forward and actively promote the creation of a peacekeeping force for the region. This is an absolute necessity to ensure the security of both communities until such time as they develop a history of peaceful co-existence. The protection of this force will allow for the resumption of normal life in Israel and the establishment of a civic and national leadership and administration whose objectives are the promotion of economic and social well-being in the Palestinian controlled areas.

Canada has had a long and proud history as peacekeepers. Our reputation in this realm can go a long way in convincing both parties involved that it is in their best interests to co-operate with this effort. They must be convinced that the cycle of conflict can be broken through their collective efforts.

Along with the military protection of a UN peacekeeping force, the Palestinian people will need our assurances of financial support for economic development and rebuilding their infrastructure, and the political support of the west for the creation of good governance and democratization.

Accommodating the security needs of Israel involves the elimination of terrorism. In my speech to the House on October 2 I said that to eliminate terrorism, we must ultimately address the need to change the conditions that breed terrorists. Nowhere can the truth of that statement be seen more clearly than in the Middle East.

The Israelis need to accept that their safety and well-being lie in the elimination of the root causes of terrorism, causes that they have inadvertently contributed to over the years. We must try to convince them that the creation and support of sustainable political and social conditions and institutions in Palestine that provide for human development will ultimately provide their best possible security.

There is one significant factor that must be addressed if we hope to see a secure and permanent peace in the region, and this is a change in the foreign policy of the countries in the region that call for the destruction of Israel. I support elements of the Saudi Arabian peace plan that called for the establishment of a Palestinian state secure within its own borders. In return, Israel would be guaranteed normalization of relations with its neighbouring Arab states, their recognition of the legitimacy of the existence of the state of Israel and their guarantee that Israel will be safe from terrorist attacks.

The conflict in that region is decades old and will take patience and fairness to resolve. No matter how strong our reassurances, or how many guarantees we offer, or how many mechanisms we put in place to provide a sense of security for the people living there, ultimately what they will need to make the leap of faith to peacefully co-exist in Palestine is an extended period of time living without day to day threats to their families.

We must pray for the strength of character and courage in the leaders of both sides in the conflict that will allow them to put aside their fear and hatreds and take the first steps toward a permanent peace, for the sake of their children and their children's children.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the House whether one of the reasons for this particular section in the bill is that first nations peoples are overrepresented in our jails? Is it a question of us trying to use some of the alternative sentencing measures available to the first nations?

[Kitchener--Waterloo, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the 2002 KPMG Competitive Alternatives report was released earlier this week, ranking the Waterloo region as one of the foremost locations in the world to do business. The costs of setting up a business in the area are much lower compared to any of the U.S. cities matching our region's demographics.

Most of our local economy is made up of companies that are world renowned and were spun off from our excellent post-secondary institutions: the University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University and Conestoga College. The excellence of our tens of thousands of graduates drives the economic engine of my community.

The Waterloo region is Canada's technology triangle and I am proud the KPMG study has recognized our region to be amongst the best to invest in, in Canada and in the world.

[Science and Technology, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the federal budget has allocated $6 million in new funding to Shad International, a Waterloo based youth leadership organization.

Shad International is one of Canada's premier programs for youth in science, technology and entrepreneurship. It identifies some of Canada's top technology talent, matches them up with over 200 of Canada's leading organizations for a five week work term that gives participants a pivotal experience at leading universities across Canada.

This expanded funding will open more doors for Canada's young people who are leaders of tomorrow. The program assists its participants in realizing their potential and at the same time promotes networking among our country's IT, engineering and scientific community.

Shad Valley has 6,865 alumni to date, 12 of whom have gone on to become Rhodes scholars. It has established approximately 160 corporate partnerships. In 1997 Shad was honoured with the Nova Corporation Global Best Award and in 1996 won the Michael Smith Award for Science Promotion. I congratulate Shad International.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I have time to respond to all the points mentioned by my colleague from the Bloc. In the area of post-secondary education, we have a very important role to play in Canada student loans and in assisting research and development and innovation.

We recently announced in my community a contribution of almost $14 million under the infrastructure program to have high tech research become part of the University of Waterloo. This is going to provide an incredible number of jobs to not only the local community but the national community as well.

I do not have time to address the whole issue of poverty but I know all about it because I lived in poverty. I came here as a refugee in 1957. Every dollar we invest in the young people of this country and in helping our post-secondary institutions is a great way to fight poverty. It is not the total answer, but it is part of the answer.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleague across the way that there has always been a danger in terms of deportations. All too often we end up deporting the ones who are most likely to abide by the rules. That is always an ongoing source of debate. Certainly, with the new enforcement function and because of the new security portion in the budget, I am sure he will find that we will be more efficient in deportations down the road, particularly with some of the more undesirable people.

In terms of drugs, let me say to the member that the government, and I know because I played a role in it, started up crime prevention community safety councils right across the country where local communities are encouraged to participate in areas of crime prevention. Last year we added a drug component to that. The issue of drugs is a combination of criminality and addiction, the latter becoming a medical problem. This is one area that the government is trying to come to grips with through the provinces, which are responsible for health care.