Charles Caccia

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I did not say what the hon. member attributes to me.

The position that the Government of Canada has taken and with which I concur is that we would be moving into a military phase only if and when the Security Council arrived at the conclusion that this would be the only and inevitable action to be taken. If that is what the hon. member means by the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts, then that is a correct interpretation.

It seems that the hon. member is mixing apples and oranges by referring to the situation in Zimbabwe because that is a completely different set of circumstances where famine exists. It is not an issue of weaponry nor of an attack on neighbouring countries. That is a humanitarian condition which would require--

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the questions raised by the member for Lakeland are probably the essence of this debate.

So far the weapons have not been used. Evidently there must be a reason. Either it is restraint, they do not exist or they may be in the process of being manufactured. We do not know. This is why the international community has decided to send in inspectors to find out rather than to judge a priori without knowledge.

What surprises me is that the member for Lakeland in his intervention refused to mention or to acknowledge at least the existence of Scott Ritter, the former senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq and his testimony to the effect that no meaningful weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq until now. He is an American citizen and he is making this declaration so there are conflicting views in this respect.

For a government to be responsible to its population at home and abroad it should be very careful before reaching conclusions and it should wait until all the facts are in. This is why the inspection as of the middle of this month in Iraq is such a welcome development. It would not have been possible had it not been for the initiative of the United Nations.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that this debate is taking place in an atmosphere of uncertainty. The question that comes to mind, while listening to the various interventions and while reading about developments in the newspapers and media, is: Will the U.S. administration abide by the policy directions emanating from the United Nations Security Council? That is a question that is unanswerable at this time.

Parallel to that question is whether American public opinion will manage to influence the administration in Washington or will President Bush manage to draw American public opinion to his side and attack Iraq in the new year, even if inspectors, who are expected to be in Iraq as of the middle of this month, give a reassuring report.

From the mail that I have received, it is quite evident that Canadians do not want to go to war and do not want our troops sent to Iraq. Canadians believe that the United Nations is the institution that can be entrusted for peacekeeping and prefer to have the Iraq question resolved by the Security Council.

Canadians feel the war in Afghanistan has not been completed and there is a war in Palestine. These two situations do not justify the opening of a third front in Iraq where the outcome of that intervention may be quite unclear at this stage. How will American forces be able to withdraw safely and leave behind an improved and new Iraq is a very legitimate question to be posed at this time.

The case that has been made for the war against Iraq has been presented by President Bush along four points.

The first point is that Saddam Hussein is a dictator. That is true. We would all rejoice if Iraq became a democracy. Saddam Hussein is not the only dictator in the world or in the Middle East. It is not acceptable therefore for one country to use military force to remove a dictator from power in another country.

Second, it is said that Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator. This is also true. However many of Saddam Hussein's abuses occurred at a time when western governments were supporting and supplying him in his war against Iran.

Third, President Bush says that for many years Iraq has flouted many United Nations resolutions. That is also true. However Iraq is not alone. Many other resolutions have been ignored by other countries for even longer periods.

We are then left with the fourth part of this case and that is the allegation that Saddam Hussein has continued to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons contrary to United Nations resolutions and has refused to allow effective inspections by United Nations representatives, again over a period of many years. One can reply to that by saying that military action to enforce United Nations resolutions can be authorized only by the United Nations Security Council.

It is not for one country to take military action alone or with the support of its allies. The decision cannot and must not be taken by one man, President Bush or anyone else, on the basis that he is not satisfied with Saddam Hussein's response to the United Nations resolutions or the findings of the United Nations inspectors.

In his speech at the United Nations, President Bush said that the situation is an important test for the United Nations. That was quite an important recognition. He is right in saying that. However it is not only a question of whether the United Nations can control Iraq but it is also a question of whether the United Nations can control the United States of America.

Last night our Minister of Foreign Affairs made the point for Canada very well when he said that the appropriate forum for discussion and the authorization of an action was the United Nations Security Council. The Prime Minister himself conveyed this message in Detroit when he met President Bush. He indicated clearly the preference of the Canadian people.

The other point the Minister of Foreign Affairs made last night was that the objective for us, and I think the global community that is interested in this very difficult matter, is to rid the Iraqi regime of weapons of mass destruction. There are those who claim that regime change is the only means to this end and if Iraq refuses to cooperate, they may turn out to be right. However our responsibility to Canadians, to the world community and to the future of the international rule of law is to be certain that we have exhausted all other options and that we so conduct ourselves in this crisis that the international order on which Canada so much depends emerges strengthened and reinvigorated.

It seems to me this is a very sound approach to which most Canadians would subscribe, except for those who prefer an isolationist type of policy just in North America regardless of what the rest of the global community is saying.

I am also very anxious to put on the record, as the member for Oakville did last night, the fact that the former senior United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq and ex-marine, Mr. Scott Ritter, stated repeatedly in giving evidence before a commission that as of December 1998 Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed and possessed no meaningful weapons of mass destruction. In 1998 the International Atomic Energy Agency certified also that Iraq no longer had a viable nuclear weapons program.

It seems to me now that in two weeks a visit by the inspectors to Iraq will bring out additional information. It may confirm what Scott Ritter has testified. It may give us different information. It seems to me that we have to bide our time and make sure that we are on the right path in dealing with this extremely delicate and potentially dangerous situation.

[Health, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, released last week, a poll commissioned by the Government of Canada reveals that 84% of Canadians want labels on genetically modified foods.

Could the Minister of Health indicate when the government is likely to make a decision on the mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods?

[G-8 Summit, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, next week's event in Kananaskis is the result of the Prime Minister's hard work over the past year and his all out effort to eradicate poverty from Africa. As a result of the Prime Minister's visits to G-8 capitals there is now agreement on investing in Africa's economic growth and social development.

Today Africa is the only continent where poverty is on the rise. Consequently G-8 leaders will discuss poverty reduction, promoting primary education, fighting the spread of HIV-AIDs, and reducing the technology gap and the debt of the poorest nations.

Kananaskis is likely to be remembered as a milestone in the practice of human solidarity and in narrowing the gap between the haves and have nots in the global community. Canadians can be proud of the Kananaskis initiative.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly the answer is no, I have not. I will seek the guidance of the parliamentary secretary to proceed in that direction.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there is sufficient time to answer all three questions but I will try.

On the first question, it seems to me that the investments in Canada savings bonds are investments in the state, in what we believe to be the role of the government, regardless of the party that is in power. Most Canada savings bonds investments are for five years or more. Maybe in five years another party will be in power. We do not know. However the fact is that Canada savings bonds are a vehicle for investment for those who believe in the future of Canada.

I invest my savings in Canada savings bonds, for instance. I find it one way of supporting Canada. I am sure that many Canadians do the same. Therefore, I would not link Canada savings bonds with the performance of any department. There are always mistakes and shortcomings. What counts is the confidence of Canadians in their country and the bonds are one way of expressing that. Maybe it is a form of patriotism. Who knows? Nevertheless, it is a good form of patriotism. I would urge the member to do the same and invest some of his savings in Canada savings bonds one of these days.

Second, the Chilean system, as well as some other systems all over the world, may have some features which are better than ours. We should look at them. However it does not mean that we have to send a committee to Chile or bring an expert from Chile. If the committee decided not to call an expert, the majority of the committee, in this democratic process, must have felt that it was not necessary. Particularly today, with the Internet and other forms of instant communications, it should not be too difficult to reach and obtain details, even through the relevant UN organization, about the positive features of the Chilean system. We can learn from the Chileans, the Europeans and many others also.

I think we have a good system. All we need to do is have faith in it and improve it.

That leads me to the third question and the predictions of the hon. member that the sustainability of the fund in the long term is in doubt or is even questionable. I do not think so. That is the assumption made by some. His party has actually advocated the replacement of the CPP with a private sector system. I do not believe that at all and I reject that notion.

I would like to see the Canada pension plan as the main central source of pension funding and pension support for Canadians. Then those who can afford it can build their own little private schemes if they like. However the public sector has to be protected and the vast majority of Canadians cannot afford to fund their future and their retirement by way of a private sector system.

This has been the strength of the Liberal Party over decades. Part of our social security approach is that of ensuring that a minimum is provided via the public sector and the taxation system. That is why we do not believe, as the hon. member does, in the reduction of taxes because taxes are essential to do certain things, such as the enhancement and strengthening of the Canada pension plan. If the percentage of contributions to which the hon. member made reference to would require an increase in years to come, and this is a matter for actuaries to decide and well beyond my ability to comprehend, I am sure that a vast majority of Canadians would support it. I would be glad to fight an election on that. I am sure that we would win.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill because it provides an opportunity to discuss the content of the bill and some general features that are not included in it but which might be desirable for a number of reasons.

Canadians do place a tremendous value in the content of this measure and a tremendous value in its social significance as to how far and to what extent in detail the Canada pension plan meets our social needs and contributes to the development of what we could call social cohesion.

In the bill it is being proposed that the funds of the Canada pension plan be invested in the private sector stock market and other forms of investment which I imagine is the result of very thorough studies which might have given an indication that this is a safe way of investing the pension fund of Canadians.

I have some reservations about the initiative because investing in financial markets leaves the fund vulnerable to market fluctuations and to the vagaries of the private sector. Therefore I am not quite certain that this is a good idea.

At the present time it seems to me at least that Canada savings bonds have performed a very good role in providing safe investments and some very high returns even at a time when interest rates are very low.

For that reason I urge the committee during its study of the bill to make absolutely certain that this is a desirable measure and perhaps introduce some amendments to the bill that will still maintain a very large window of opportunity for the investments of the Canada pension plan funds in the form of bonds and other public sector investments which, as I mentioned earlier, are safe in the long term and provide some good, solid returns. To sum this up, it seems to me that it would be best not to engage in speculative activities with public funds.

The bill does not deal with very much else. Therefore I feel compelled to raise a question that has been raised on a number of occasions in previous discussions of the Canada pension plan, namely the five year disability clause. This clause causes unnecessary hardship to a number of Canadians. We have direct experience of this with people who visit our constituency office. Beyond that, from the study that we have conducted over the years about cases of Canadians who have been rejected because they could not meet this stringent clause, it would be highly desirable in future amendments of the Canada pension plan to extend the five year clause to seven years. That would seem to be a more reasonable and fairer way of dealing with people who, for instance, may be suffering from some kind of recurring disease but who also have lapses.

I want to refer to a specific case. A person with lupus applied for disability and was denied. The disease then became worse. When the person finally reapplied she was beyond the five year limit and was disqualified for the purposes of the Canada pension disability.

I am sure that hon. members in the House have come across similar cases of a denial of a disability pension because of the five year clause. I hope there will be an opportunity one day soon to improve this particular measure.

I want to say a few words about the Pension Appeals Board. The hearings are presently two years behind. They used to be, at the most, six months behind. When we make inquiries about the delays we are told they are due to the absence of a sufficient number of judges. It would seem only fair that this method be raised here because everyone would agree that Canadians should not be subjected to two years of waiting for a hearing, sometimes under hardships or being incapacitated or injured.

I would like the minister to take note of that problem. It is not something that requires an amendment. It is purely an administrative measure that can be taken by intensifying the search and hiring the appropriate judges. We need to reduce the two year waiting period to roughly six months for Canadians who need to turn to this appeal process. That would seem to be a reasonable request.

An issue that was covered in the media a day or two ago concerned the Canada pension plan apparently discriminating against common-law spouses. Common-law spouses are being refused survivors' pensions if they did not live with their partner at the time of the partner's death. The judgment handed down by the Federal Court of Appeal states that the Canada pension plan does discriminate in these types of cases.

The case referred to in the media concerns Ms. Betty Hodge, a 61 year old Ontario resident, who was denied a CPP survivor's pension after her common-law husband of more than 20 years apparently died in mid-1994.

It seems that we have a number of issues outside the scope of the bill that need attention.

I would conclude by expressing the hope that the government will find it possible in the fall or next year to bring forward a bill that will improve the quality of the Canada pension plan. We are certain of the fact that the Canada pension system is a pillar of Canadian social security, an absolute necessity for the well-being of people who retire and, as I mentioned earlier, it contributes considerably to social cohesion.

I would like to think that the Canada pension plan will receive the constant attention of the Government of Canada so as to improve its features and make it stronger and more relevant to the needs of Canadians. Society changes and evolves and sometimes the cost of living can increase after retirement, especially for some seniors who may have to take care of their grandchildren, and for other reasons.

[The Environment, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Kyoto agreement will come into effect when developed countries whose combined emissions equal 55% of the total emissions ratify it. The countries of the European Union have already ratified, and Japan too.

Canada should drop the idea of seeking credits for clean energy exports and ratify Kyoto. Its signature could be enough to put Kyoto into effect. Waiting for developing countries to join is unrealistic. They have made it clear they have no intention of acting now. Instead, creating opportunities for improved energy efficiency, energy innovation and economic incentives in developing countries is the better approach.

By ratifying, Canada would give badly needed leadership in North America and assume its share of responsibility for the security of the global community.

[Trade, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, apparently the Oregon forest giant Pope & Talbot opposes the release of certain documents. Consequently, a NAFTA tribunal has ruled that the Government of Canada cannot release documents requested by the public.

Could the Minister for International Trade inform the House as to when discussions on the interpretation of chapter 11 will conclude and whether the issue of secret tribunals and denial of public access to information is now included in these discussions?