Bonnie Brown

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough East.

On this very important topic, I think we should state where Canadians are. Canadians know that the world is a dangerous place. They are very proud of their contributions in the past to pursuing peace, to securing peace and to keeping the peace.

With rumours of war circulating at the present time, they are now trying to evaluate the news of each day against their own memories of history and measure it against their own life experiences and their own set of values. I think they remain skeptical about war in general as a solution to problems and I think they remain concerned about the unintended consequences of war, consequences which many of our own citizens in this country have experienced in the past in their home countries.

Those who have personal experience with war, report that war is primarily not about victory or defeat. War is about destruction. War is about death.

Right now the citizens of Iraq, 25 million of them, feel like they are under a death sentence. Each passing day seems to bring them closer to a war in which tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of them will die.

The U.S. military strategy for Iraq is called shock and awe, and involves dropping 300 to 400 cruise missiles each day for two consecutive days. That is more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire gulf war which lasted 40 days.

On January 27 the military strategist who designed this strategy called shock and awe told CBS News “We want them to quit, not to fight, so you have an effect rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but only minutes”.

He went on to say “the sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before. There will be not one safe place in Baghdad”.

If there is a war, this will be the military strategy. I ask my colleagues, does Canada want to be part of an attack on a city full of civilians in which there will truly be no safe place?

Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War have predicted that 500,000 Iraqis could die in this war. The United Nations own task force predicts that 100,000 Iraqis could be wounded and 400,000 hit by disease after the bombing of water and sewage facilities and the disruption of food supplies. They predict that at least 900,000 Iraqi refugees will go to Iran and that two million people could be displaced from their homes within the country. They have not even tried to establish figures for those who may go to Kuwait, Turkey, Syria or Jordan.

This is the true face of war: dead people, maimed people, starving people and thirsty people driven from their homes; miserable refugees searching for a safe place.

I am stating these unpleasant predictions from experts because yesterday on television I heard a financial analyst suggest that the volatility of the financial markets is due to the global uncertainty about war on Iraq. Having stated that position, he said “Maybe we should just get it over with”. Did he know that meant killing perhaps hundreds of thousands of people so that our financial markets could become stable? How convenient that would be for us; how inconvenient for Iraqis.

I do not really blame him because our North American vision of war from a distance and as seen on CNN has skewed our perception of war. We see explosions in the distance. We see lights in the night sky. All this explosion business is followed by some healthy looking North American analyst claiming success. I guess it depends on a person's definition of success.

The military strategist I referred to earlier recently wrote that one way to shock and awe Saddam Hussein is to remind him that the U.S. has “certain weapons” that can destroy deeply buried facilities. That sentence is not even a thinly veiled reference to the newest kind of nuclear weapons, the B-61 bunker busters. Los Angeles Times columnist William Arkin has confirmed that the U.S. is preparing to use nuclear bunker busters against Iraq. Senator Kennedy, after hearing this news last week, wrote in the Times :

A dangerous world just grew more dangerous. Reports that the administration is contemplating the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons in Iraq should set off alarm bells that this could not only be the wrong war at the wrong time, but it could quickly spin out of control.

Initiating the use of nuclear weapons would make a conflict with Iraq potentially catastrophic.

Why? Because:

Nuclear weapons are in a class of their own for good reasons.... They have been kept separate from other military alternatives out of a profound commitment to do all we can to see that they are never used again.... It makes no sense to break down the firewall that has existed for half a century between nuclear conflict and any other form of warfare.

By raising the possibility that nuclear weapons could be part of a first strike against Iraq, the American administration would be letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle.

This policy [would] deepen(s) the danger of nuclear proliferation by, in effect, telling non-nuclear states that nuclear weapons are necessary to deter a potential U.S. attack and by sending a green light to the world's nuclear states that it is permissible to use them. Is this the lesson we want to send to North Korea, Pakistan and India or any other nuclear power?

The use of nuclear weapons in Iraq in the absence of an imminent, overwhelming threat to... national security would bring a near-total breakdown in relations between the U.S. and the rest of the world. At a minimum, it would lead to a massive rise in anti-Americanism in the Arab world and a corresponding increase in sympathy for terrorists who seek to do us harm.

The senator concludes by saying, “Our nation”--meaning the U.S.--“long a beacon of hope, would overnight be seen as a symbol of death, destruction and aggression”.

These reports of the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons are very disturbing. They force me to ask: Do Canadians want to be part of an attack through which the principle we have upheld for 50 years, that is, of holding back nuclear weapons is broken? It is a principle which has served the world well.

I speak today because I want my colleagues and all Canadians to face the realities of war, the realities for the people of Iraq and the people of their region. I want us all to consider the repercussions on the global community, on the struggle against terrorism, on the future recruitment of terrorists and on the reputation of Canada in the world. I want us to ask ourselves if the military strategies that I have described and which were in the paper and on television last week and have never been denied by anybody in authority in the United States, are used and if the results and repercussions that I have also described coming from experts who know about these things, do all those horrible things seem to my colleagues to be a proportional response, an appropriate response to the threat posed by the situation in Iraq today?

[Correctional Service Canada, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

The Saskatchewan Penitentiary recently suspended an Alcoholics Anonymous program that supports inmates in that institution. We know that many inmates enter correctional facilities with substance abuse problems and that they need support in order to become rehabilitated and to become law-abiding members of society.

Will the Solicitor General please tell the House what the Saskatchewan Penitentiary is doing to help inmates to deal with these problems of addiction?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, is this not the same chart we were given yesterday? What order are you doing it in? It would be helpful if you would call out the number.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We had a list provided to us by the Speaker yesterday which had the motions in order. According to my reckoning we have missed Motions Nos. 53 and 61. In this last vote I do not even know which motion we were on. Are we doing every second one? How is it being done?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, there seems to be quite a bit of debate on Motions Nos. 71 and 72 proposed by the Minister of Health or her officials.

I think the confusion that arises is based upon long discussions we held at the committee. Some people seem to feel that we made some kind of mistake by putting in the fact that we did not want the board of directors to be peopled by those who might have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest. Nothing could be further from the point. We put that in for a specific reason.

I have to go back to the idea of the formation of a board of directors. There are two ways to form a board of directors. The typical way, particularly typical in Ottawa, is to form a board of directors of people who are experts in the field wherein the membership reflects the stakeholders. With such a board of directors, in this particular case, one would have scientists doing this kind of research; one would have physicians who had, at some point or another, been part of fertility clinics; and perhaps nurses who had assisted in those clinics. We would probably have infertile couples or individuals from infertility groups. There are a variety of people who could be called stakeholders and who have a certain degree of expertise.

The Government of Canada has a history of putting together that kind of oversight board. On that kind of board, my experience on such a board suggests that those people are always fighting for the advantage.

In the middle of those experts, the other person who is often nominated to such a board is the ethicist. If there were one or two ethicists among 20 other people with vested interests, how many times would the ethicist's view prevail when other people have a possibility of pecuniary gain if they get their own way at the board table? My feeling is that the ethicists often become, despite their very best efforts and their wonderful training, the apologists for the board decision, which does not reflect the ethical position they presented to the board.

We ran into this problem when we were discussing the make-up of the board of directors but we were lucky enough to have on our committee at that time a man called Preston Manning. Most members will know that I personally, as a Liberal, did not agree with Preston Manning about many issues of government. As a matter of fact, I disagreed with most of his stances at election time. However, in all honesty to my colleagues in the House, I must say that having Preston Manning on the committee was a terrific asset. When we faced the possibility of people seeking pecuniary gain through assisted human reproduction and related research, he came up with the suggestion that we strike a new kind of board of directors, one that is not familiar to Parliament Hill.

When he did that of course all the officials who would defend the status quo around here rose up and said that it would never work. They tried to dissuade us of that. However one official, who shall remain nameless, encouraged us. That was the one official we heard from the Auditor General's department who felt that our idea, or Preston's idea which we adopted, was one sure way of preventing the misuse of the licensing function, the research funding function and the fertility clinics by all the associated professionals who are making a lot of money through those clinics today.

Our first thought was to have a panel of retired judges. They would have the age, the wisdom and sufficient education to understand most of the scientific matters, but the important thing would be that they would have a history of understanding the acceptable mores and ethics that most Canadians could accept. They would have a vision going forward. They would understand how Canada is different from its large southern neighbour. We felt their decisions guiding this agency would be excellent.

Later we broadened that idea. What about retired deans from universities? What about a retired dean of sociology, for example? What about a retired dean of history? What about a retired head of science at a university? The expertise would be around the table but no one who had one cent to gain. That is why we put that clause in. We were challenging the status quo with these boards of directors filled with so-called expertise, but are people driving for their institutions, clinics or points of view to win, diminishing often the input of ethicists.

We wanted people on our board, perhaps a retired professor of ethics, perhaps a retired historian who could see the history of Canada and the understanding Canadians have of themselves, sociology, social work, medicine, but no one who was actively in the field. They would have neither a direct nor an indirect pecuniary interest.

I am asking the House to go with the new idea of a new type of board of directors because the nuances, ethical, religious, scientific, the past, the future, all the things that have to be considered require a very special board of directors and not the typical one that we have been structuring around here. We are asking everyone to take that leap and to create something new because this subject is new. There has never been a board of directors about this subject and we think it takes a particular kind of person or group of people to steer this clearly. I would ask the House to defeat Motion No. 72.

In Motion No. 71 everyone will notice that the preamble and the statement at the beginning of the bill talk about the fact that no matter how one slices it, no matter what wonderful fathers we have present in this chamber or what wonderful children they have produced, a lot of the procedures that are involved with assisted human reproduction affect the bodies of women far more. Some of them are very invasive. Even the bodies of so-called ova donors are affected very seriously.

The biological mother, the ova donor, all these women, who often take a whole bunch of drugs prior to the collection of ova, are very severely affected. That is why we put in the fact that their interests must be protected and, therefore, 50% of the board should be women. It does not seem to me to be too restrictive an idea. After all, even in our political conventions 50% of the delegates from any riding association have to be women.

Surely we think that women can sit on a board of directors for an issue of such magnitude and one that affects them so deeply and not be afraid to put that in the bill. It does not say more than 50%. It does not say 50% have to be men. I do not know how it would work out, but the fact of the matter is women are affected and their viewpoints must be heard at this board table. Therefore, I would also ask the House to defeat Motion No. 71.

This is the kind of issue that leads one to look forward into the future. If this is not dealt with extremely carefully, we put at risk the Canadian gene pool: for example. What kind of a society do we want or the integrity of the human genome? These are huge concepts and to me it takes extremely wise, well educated people who are totally free of any direct or indirect pecuniary interest.

It is a different kind of board we are looking for, half women and half men, and one that is totally divorced from any personal gain of any type as it goes about making its decisions.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to comment and ask for your assistance in the arrangement of these motions in groups.

I would point out to you that Group No. 1 has seven motions, Group No. 3 has 11 motions, Group No. 4, which is mainly about administrative matters and the agency, has 16 motions, and Group No. 5 has 11 motions. In opposition to that, Group No. 2, which deals with the most serious concepts and the issues most highly debated in committee, contains 27 motions. I do not have a motion in that group, unlike the previous speaker who has 14 motions, but even I, in trying to comment on the major issues which are being proposed in the 27 motions, would find it difficult to comment within 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if you could divide Group No. 2 into 2A and 2B. The member for Mississauga South and members who have worked now for two full years on this issue might at least have sufficient time for fulsome remarks on each of the 27 amendments proposed. It is impossible to comment on them in 10 minutes.

[Health, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, members should know by now that the standing committee's first responsibility is to review legislation sent to it by the House. We did that, and this morning I reported on Bill C-13. It might have been faster, except for the obstructionist tactics employed by the Alliance members during clause by clause.

In addition to that, three times in the last two weeks Alliance members asked the committee not to meet due to social events they had to attend. Once again they want to have it both ways. It cannot be done.

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2002]

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

Pursuant to its order of reference dated Wednesday, October 9, 2002, the health committee has considered Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction. The committee agreed on Tuesday, December 10, 2002, to report it with amendment.

I wish to thank the members, the witnesses and the staff who assisted us through these deliberations.

[Regulatory System, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the OECD recently completed a comprehensive review of Canada's regulatory system. The title of the report, “Regulatory Reform in Canada: Maintaining Leadership through Innovation”, suggests that the OECD's assessment was very positive.

Could the government House leader tell us how Canada's regulatory system measures up, according to the OECD.

[Afghanistan, October 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, today the United Nations world food program warned that an estimated four millions Afghans will be short of food in the next 12 months.

Last Friday, President Karzai asked for international aid to eradicate the production of illegal drugs. His problem is that poppy growing is 40 times more profitable than growing wheat and his farmers need to be convinced of viable alternatives to poppy crops.

His government's control is weak outside of Kabul and there are outbreaks of violence in the southeast and the northwest. He reported that of the $1.8 billion pledged by the international community, only $890 million has been received. He added that peace and stability depend on the international community's sustained engagement in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.