Bonnie Brown

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Health regarding the availability of animal sourced insulins for diabetics.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, your committee requests that the government provide a comprehensive response within 150 days of the tabling of the report in the House.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Health entitled “Strengthening the Canadian Strategy on HIV/AIDS”.

Having listened carefully to the insightful testimony offered by witnesses, the committee now calls for appropriate long term funding to curtail the progression of this disease in our society.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, your committee requests that the government provide a comprehensive response within 150 days of the tabling of this report in the House of Commons.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague touches on two or three points.

On the cost factor, I would like to say that not only might we be expected to help pay our share, but we also have to keep in mind that the very bad economic indicators coming from business journalists in the United States suggest to me that we, whose economy is so integrated with the United States, those people are our best customers and our best trading partners, it worries me about the effects on our economy if their national treasury does not have enough money in it if in fact these huge tax cuts drain it at the same time as they are making massive military expenditures.

It would seem to me that has a very negative effect on our economy and the ability of our people to sell products to a nation which has been characterized by some as not only the world's super power, but essentially the world's super debtor right now.

As to the integration of our army, navy and air force, I raised that only as a possibility. I am not sure that would happen but that would have serious effects on our sovereignty.

I would like to take the questioner back to the basic question. When one is thinking of taking on a partner in any realm, whether it is a military or economic thing, does it not help that the partner has a similar world view? As one Canadian, I reject the fact that any nation or any group of individuals can make a judgment as to who is a rogue, who has failed, who is good, who is evil, et cetera. That is a very negative way of looking at the international community. I prefer a view that gives credit where credit is due, that has international institutions that deal multilaterally with problems that arise and not use these very judgmental phrases when what we really should be seeking is co-operation, not putting others down.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the mover of the motion for putting the question of Canada's participation in national missile defence on the agenda of the House.

We all know that debate has raged in the media, in the corridors of power and in the private caucus meetings of the various political parties. It is time now for the debate to become open to the people of Canada.

Canadian proponents of our participation in the missile defence system are low bridging the concept by saying, first, it is “not a big deal”; second, we are “just considering talking”; third, that our participation would “keep Norad viable”; fourth, that it “won't cost anything”; and, fifth, that it is “merely defensive”.

They are characterizing this possibility as a small, benign issue as in the vernacular, no big deal. I disagree. It is a big deal for a variety of reasons. Since the second world war, enlightened nations, including Canada, have worked to establish international treaties and institutions to deal with threats to peace through diplomacy, aid packages and an atmosphere of hope and co-operation.

We were not always successful, particularly when it came to bloody civil wars, but one could feel some progress.

Terrorism has arisen as a knife to puncture our hope. We are right to be fearful of terrorism but we should not let that knife puncture all the mechanisms we have developed in our search for peace on this planet.

In the past few years there has developed a new way of looking at the world, a world with lists of rogue states, failed states and willing states, good states and evil states; a world of increased military security and decreased human rights, a world with the threat of pre-emptive strikes hanging over our heads. This is a world of no hope, of little optimism and seems to me to be based on fear and paranoia. All this is a massive change in the evolution of our civilization and, to me, represents a large step backward in time, back to an era when might was right.

Unfortunately, the proponent of most of these phrases and of this world view is our potential partner in national missile defence. If we agree to participate, do we not indicate agreement with this fear motivated view of the world? This would be a radical change in Canada's outlook on the world and therefore it is a big deal.

We have been told that Canada is just considering talking to the Americans about it. On the other hand, the American ambassador on television characterized it as “serious negotiations”. Surely no one expects that they will hold talks about an advanced, highly technological project without a firm commitment to participate. If we get in by giving a commitment, how do we then honourably get out? If we do not like what we hear halfway through the process, what is our exit strategy?

We have also been told that this project with our participation might keep Norad viable. The American ambassador has implied that if we participate the project would stay within Norad and if we do not that it would go to Northcom. He has implied that but an implication is not a guarantee.

In an age of unmanned aircraft and smart missiles, is Norad the organization of the future or is the United States planning to abandon it and fold MDS into Northcom, and, as a partner in MDS, might Canada not be folded in as well? That would accomplish its stated goal of a continental security perimeter, and possibly integration of our armed forces for land and sea, as well as air and space. Is this in the best interest of Canadians?

Some might say that this is fantasy but all speculation about the future is fantasy and, as parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to consider all possibilities.

We also have been told by the proponents that it will not cost anything. Right now that seems to be true in the monetary sense, but there is a potential piece of legislation circulating in the congress called the missile defence burdensharing act, an act that requires the president to name which countries are protected by MDS and an act which requires the president to seek contributions from those protected nations. This act is on the back burner right now but will it stay there when American citizens realize the state of their economy?

Here are some current facts on that front: 49 of 50 states experienced net job losses last year; the annual deficit is now higher per capita than ours was in 1993; budget plans show no attempt to rectify the situation. Instead they show less money coming in to the treasury because of tax cuts and a massive outflow of expenditures on the military. The media report that there exists over $30 trillion in unfunded pension liability in the states. Rght now the United States has to raise $1.5 billion a day from foreign sources. This makes the Americans very vulnerable, as they are economically dependent upon the savings of others.

As a Canadian, these economic indicators worry me. I hear a loud warning trumpet heralding a transfer of money into the pockets of the rich through tax cuts and outflow of funding to the military and MDS, and away from health, education and social security. How long will it be before American citizens demand that countries under the umbrella of MDS pay their fair share? Only the very young think that anything in this world is for free.

In addition, the cost is not just calculated in dollars. Travellers know our Canadian passport is welcomed around the world. Canada has a long tradition of peacekeeping and peace seeking. Our history includes such statesmen as Lester Pearson and Lloyd Axworthy, who helped to establish our good reputation around the world. Are we willing to jeopardize it by partnering in a project like MDS? If we give our seal of approval by participating, what would be the long term cost to our reputation?

Proponents of MDS claim that it is not star wars, that it does not include the weaponization of space. Right now that appears to be true, but will it last? How can we trust that to continue when the United States has a new basis for its foreign affairs and defence policy?

This document, called “A New Security Agenda for the United States of America”, is based on its self-declared right to conduct pre-emptive strikes or military aggression against any nation that it deems to be a threat. This is a policy based on offence, not defence. How could one possibly keep one section of a military arsenal strictly defensive when the national defence policy is stated in the document as offensive and aggressive?

Another clue to this question of offence or defence can be found in American budget estimates for 2004 which propose spending $2.5 billion in rebuilding the country's nuclear weapons manufacturing industry. One example is $320 million to build new plutonium cores for nuclear warheads. Another example is $135 million to restart the production of tritium, a development seen as the first tangible action which shows a commitment to expanding the nuclear arsenal, not just maintaining it. For those of us concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, these budget estimates are ominous.

If any doubt remains, the United States space command vision statement makes it clear. Its “Vision for 2020” document says that “NMD will evolve into a mix of ground and space sensors and weapons”.

The only way to deal with the threat of ballistic missiles is to negotiate disarmament measures that will get rid of them. Canada should work for a global ban on missile flight tests, which are essential for the development of missile technology but are easily detectable by satellite. The way forward lies in supporting international law and implementing a negotiated agreement, such as the non-proliferation treaty.

With all the problems in the world which the international community must urgently address, from the growing gap between rich and poor, a gap which feeds the recruitment of terrorists, to serious environmental degradation which threatens us all, joining in a costly and so far technologically deficient system which might seal interoperability of Canadian military forces with the Americans is not a small matter but a huge question and one that should be explored from every possible angle before a decision is made.

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Chair, a meaningful examination of the estimates will show one key figure which is not explained very well, because it is a single line and it is a transfer. It is a $55 million increase to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Government of Canada's premier agency for health research. Its budget is now $617 million, more than double the amount it had at the time of its creation in the year 2000. Canadians are justified if they ask what they are getting in return for that money.

There are several ways to look at this. One of the ways is to simply look at the evidence in the recent outbreak of SARS. Funding to Canadian researchers working in areas directly relevant to SARS was acknowledged in a paper in The New England Journal of Medicine on March 31, and Canadian researchers at the B.C. Cancer Agency were the first in the world to sequence the genome of the suspected coronavirus that causes SARS. This was all fueled by the analyses that were carried out on samples and the great work that came out of the Winnipeg National Microbiology Laboratory. This sequencing is a critical first step in learning how to prevent and treat this disease and other infectious diseases.

The CIHR is providing $500,000 for research that will respond rapidly to the challenge of SARS and is also undertaking longer term initiatives to address infectious diseases. That is just one recent example of that particular budget line in the estimates.

The Minister of Health has led this team, from the federal government's role, of provincial, municipal and federal workers on the SARS front. However the people of Canada should know that it was the funding for research, which is such a large part of the federal government's strategy, under the health umbrella that was underpinning the success of our experience with the SARS outbreak. Despite the deaths, it could have been worse and we should be very proud. I for one am very proud of our minister and her role in that particular situation.

Perhaps the minister would like to tell us of another piece of research of which she is particularly proud.

[Committees of the House, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Health.

[Liver Disease, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Liver Foundation has designated March as Help Fight Liver Disease Month.

Liver disease is the fourth leading cause of death in Canada, striking men, women and children indiscriminately. The foundation's mandate is to reduce the incidence and the impact of liver disease through research and education.

Canadian researchers have long been recognized internationally for their breakthroughs in the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of liver disease. The foundation is proud to be able to support their efforts by awarding research grants to leading liver specialists as well as to new researchers who are so important to this field.

I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in honouring the Canadian Liver Foundation and all of its volunteers during Help Fight Liver Disease Month.

[Protection of Children, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Ottawa's Black History Month committee will hold its fourth annual reconciliation day in Ottawa. At that time a tribute will be paid to Canada at a celebration at the National Library and Archives of Canada.

Tomorrow, February 12, marks the first anniversary of a very important milestone in the history of humanity and the culture of Canada. On February 12, 2002, the United Nations ban on the use of children in armed conflict came into force.

A tribute will be paid to Canada for being the first nation to ratify this optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child. This treaty prohibits and seeks to eliminate the use of children under 18 in armed hostilities, a practice the ILO calls one of the most extreme forms of child labour.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member was my friend and would not put me on the spot such as she has. I agree with her that my correspondence is running currently 100 to 2 in favour of not going to Iraq. A great percentage of that 100 is against going under any circumstances.

On her question of our becoming a no war nation, most people who know me know I would agree with that. I was very impressed visiting Switzerland which apparently has one of the highest standards of living in the world. My feeling is it is because the Swiss do not waste it on building destructive forces within their country. However, they have a particular geographic location which may make that possible, I am not sure.

I do not think that Canadians and Canada are quite as far along the pattern of evolution as to be able to come to that consensus just yet. Hopefully the day will come when we can get to that point and stop wasting money on things that destroy and kill other people. There is an escalation in tension today. It is unfortunate and we are in a particularly tricky position here, but I think that our Prime Minister is doing an excellent job.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that there are hungry and thirsty people in Iraq today. There are millions in Africa who are hungry and thirsty. There are millions in North Korea who are starving to death. It is this obsession with one dictator, one evil person in the world that has put me off personally right from the beginning. I remember asking in October why it was that one nation got to pick the dictator of the hour.

For example, in considering threats to world safety there was another interesting article in the Washington Post that said yes, Colin Powell has the rods to prove nuclear activity. He has the trucks pulling up and moving these rods around. Oops, the only problem is it is all in North Korea, but the President of the United States wants to go to Iraq and not North Korea. Containment is good in North Korea, which is far more threatening with its abilities and capabilities than Iraq, but the president does not want to go to Korea. He wants to go to Iraq.

One of the columnists wrote that Colin Powell or the whole administration has taken fuzzy evidence about Saddam Hussein and made it very scary and has taken very scary evidence about North Korea and kept it very fuzzy. We do not have to allow someone else to decide for us which is the worst dictator in the world at the present time. In trying to maintain peace, one is searching for connections and diplomatic ways of reaching all these people and helping them to build a more democratic state and culture.

What I object to is the demonization of one of them. I ask, what happened to Osama bin Laden? I think he has become Osama been forgotten.