Bonnie Brown

[International Aid, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that tuberculosis kills more than two million people worldwide every year. The overwhelming majority of these deaths happen in developing countries.

May I ask the minister responsible for CIDA what the Canadian government is doing to address this deadly and entirely preventable disease?

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for CIDA--

[The Economy, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week in West Virginia, the United States Business Council held its annual meeting. The American CEOs assembled there said that a war against Iraq could spell trouble for the fragile U.S. economy. The overall impact would be negative, they predicted, because energy prices would rise sharply and potential travellers would stay home.

The CEO of J.P. Morgan said that the prospect of war is another negative with respect to capital markets and equity markets. Another one said that war would have a depressive impact on the economy and would delay the start of business investment. Another said “I don't think another $100 billion tax on U.S. citizens is a good thing”.

All this negative commentary on the effect of war on the U.S. economy should concern Canadian business persons because Americans are the biggest purchasers of Canadian products. Canadian investors too should be concerned about the effect of war on the equity markets and therefore on their own portfolios.

[Iraq, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I said in my speech that there are many rogues and many evil people in this world. I do not give over to George Bush the right to designate one or two of them and decide that they are the ones that the great strength of western powers should go after at any given moment.

Certainly Osama bin Laden offended us terribly. He has done some very destructive things. I also would contend that it is perhaps a lack of ability to catch him which George Bush could then hold up as a big success for his war against Afghanistan. Even though it was supposed to be a war against terrorism, it turned out to be bombing Afghanistan and its innocent civilians. He was really after terrorists who were born in Saudi Arabia, but he would not think of bombing Saudi Arabia because that might destroy his supply of cheap oil.

[Iraq, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, an earlier speaker on the opposition side suggested that some of our members are rather youthful, but the misunderstanding of World War II is very clear in the previous speaker's remarks.

When we moved in World War II as Allies, we were moving against the idea of one nation aggressively invading and taking over another. This is exactly what George Bush is now proposing. So the veterans of World War II fought to say, “You can't do that, single nation”, being a different nation at that time.

I am saying that we should respect their memory by reiterating that no single nation, no matter how powerful, no matter how much the world's only superpower, should be allowed to do that when the world has established certain peaceful relations based upon that principle. Nobody should be allowed to break it with impunity. That is what I am saying.

[Iraq, October 1st, 2002]

How can one condemn and punish aggressive behaviour on the one hand and then in later years advance it for one's own purposes? It is illogical.

In summary, all the arguments so far put forward to attack Iraq seem to be without solid foundation and to be rather illogical, not to mention dangerous to international stability.

I would also say that such a sortie is insulting to Canadian and American veterans of World War II. At that time the principle underpinning Canadian participation was that the world would not allow one nation to attack, invade and take over another nation. Our victory at that time established that principle, which then became a tenet of the United Nations.

A second principle emerged from the Pacific in World War II. When Japan launched a bombing raid designed to cripple the American navy in the Pacific, Japan was using a pre-emptive strike. Pearl Harbor has gone down in history as a day of infamy and in the end resulted in the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From that day forward pre-emptive strikes by nation states were seen as unacceptable and most likely to turn out to be counterproductive.

Today George Bush is trying to justify the concept and the use of the pre-emptive strike. A pre-emptive attack against Iraq is not self-defence. It is an act that is against international law, including the United Nations charter.

Now that the U.S. is the world's only superpower, if the Bush administration negates or ignores international laws and agreements, the United States then contributes to the undermining of the foundations of global stability. By suggesting an invasion of another country and by pushing the idea of a pre-emptive strike, George Bush is insulting the memory of World War II soldiers who lost their lives to establish these principles.

Today the drums of war are throbbing again. America, which has not yet caught last year's villain, is arranging a comeback for the villain of 1990. Is this because of the United States' faltering economy? Is it to distract from the scandals of corporate corruption and falling stock markets? Is it to ignite fires of patriotism and support the President just before a November election so he can gain a majority of seats in the Senate? Is it about a secure supply of oil or more business for the arms manufacturers?

If he does go ahead and strikes Iraq, will he have to rewrite history so that the other pre-emptive strike, Pearl Harbor, is no longer described as an atrocity? And will he be able to cope with the unintended results which the last time included the detonation of nuclear weapons?

Violence still begets more violence. Canadians stand for peace, pluralism and multilateralism. We can choose to destroy in violence or to build in peace.

I ask my colleagues and indeed all Canadians to apply critical thinking to the exhortations of the American President. I do want to be best friends with our American brothers and sisters, but I do not want to be part of this march of folly that is being proposed by the Bush administration today.

[Iraq, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I think not. I do not think he is that kind of an expert so why should his own citizens, not to mention Canadians and the rest of the world, accept his simple black and white view of today's world?

For those of us who are regularly exposed to American culture, his opinions seem to be more reflective of an American movie plot than the real complex world in which we live. I agree that there are certainly many rogues in this world but it is deceptively simple to paint one as a demon worth destabilizing the whole world.

In the same vein I question the idea of an axis of evil, three states that are evil and threaten our peace. From the perspective of a western democrat, there are many nations whose values and practices conflict with our ideals. Are we to go to war with them all? How ridiculous. President Bush has tried to link Iraq with September 11 and al-Qaeda but has failed to produce any evidence of such a link. This is sowing the seeds of a dangerous confusion about the relationship between al-Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Attacking Iraq would not be a continuation of the war against terror, but a deviation from it. Why? Because Iraq and al-Qaeda are natural enemies. A central tenet of al-Qaeda's jihadist ideology is that secular Muslim rulers like Saddam and their regimes have oppressed the true believers and plunged Islam into a historic crisis. To contemporary jihadists, Saddam Hussein is another in a line of dangerous secularists, an enemy of their faith. Saddam Hussein himself has long recognized that al-Qaeda represents a threat to his regime.

In 1998 the National Security Council concluded and found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Now does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? There is no evidence of this.

Scott Ritter, former senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq and ex-marine, who testified in front of one of our standing committees, has stated repeatedly 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 that Iraq no longer had a viable nuclear weapons program.

In my view our minister and the international community are on the right track by reinstating the weapons inspection process and Iraq has agreed. We have a plan; let us follow it.

It is true that Saddam Hussein killed his own people in 1988. Did members know that in that same year the U.S. government provided him with $500 million in subsidies to buy American products? The next year after his campaign against the Kurds, the American government doubled its subsidy to $1 billion. Is it not a little late to pass moral judgments 14 years and $1.5 billion later?

It is also hypocritical when the western world did not prevent a subsequent genocide that killed 800,000 people in Rwanda in 1994. It is also true that Iraq invaded Kuwait. The world rightly condemned that aggression and drove the Iraqi army back within its own borders. Since then Iraq has stayed there.

[Iraq, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the president of the country which is our closest neighbour, our largest trading partner and whose people have been our best friends in the world is trying to convince us to join him in an attack and invasion of Iraq. The president claims that Iraq is a rogue state, part of an axis of evil that threatens the world; that it harbours terrorists and may be linked to September 11; that it builds and amasses weapons of mass destruction and uses them against its own people; and reminds us that Iraq tried to expand its territory when it invaded Kuwait.

To deal with the president of Iraq and this list of crimes, the U.S. president is aggressively selling the idea of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. I am here tonight to speak in opposition to this idea and to undermine the reasons which underpin the idea.

First, I oppose the idea of one person or one state dividing the world into good countries and evil countries. I ask you Madam Speaker, is George Bush known as such a world expert on history, geography, moral theology or any other academic discipline for that matter, that would suggest he has the right to identify--

[Governors General of Canada, June 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend Governor General Adrienne Clarkson will celebrate 50 years of Canadian governors general with a concert at Rideau Hall. It was 50 years ago that the Right Hon. Vincent Massey became the first Canadian born governor general.

This concert is to celebrate the accomplishments of Canadians over the last 50 years. Twenty-five thousand people are expected for the concert called “Live From Rideau Hall”. For two hours crowds will be thrilled by over 16 Canadian musical acts from across the musical spectrum, from Stompin' Tom Connors to the National Arts Centre orchestra.

I encourage Canadians who will be in the national capital region this weekend to attend the concert and to celebrate the variety and excellence of Canadian artists.

[Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie proposing that the government take the necessary measures for Canada to ratify the inter-American convention to prevent and punish torture.

There are three key points which will help inform this debate and on which all hon. members should agree. First, there can be no doubt that Canada condemns unequivocally torture and other cruel and degrading acts anywhere and at anytime. There is never any justification for torture.

Second, Canada's decision not to accede to the inter-American convention must not be interpreted as suggesting that Canada is somehow soft on torture. The promotion and protection of human rights is an integral part of Canadian foreign policy. Canada is fully committed to the elimination of torture, to investigating the question of torture, to prosecuting those responsible for such acts and to supporting victims of torture.

When Canada deposited its instrument of ratification in 1987, we were among the first states to be parties to the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Today the number of states that are parties to that convention is 126. Canada continues to encourage those states that have not already done so to become parties to the UN convention.

At United Nations meetings, including the UN general assembly, Canada has worked closely with other like-minded delegations to negotiate and support resolutions on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments or punishments. As recently as this past week, Canada co-sponsored a resolution at the UN commission. The opening words of that resolution are a collective affirmation of the global repugnance against torture. Those words bear repeating in this debate. It states:

Reaffirming that no one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, that such actions constitute a criminal attempt to destroy a fellow human being physically and mentally, which can never be justified under any circumstances, by any ideology or by any overriding interest, and convinced that a society that tolerates torture can never claim to respect human rights....

The UN Commission on Human Rights resolution also notes with appreciation the work of the special rapporteur on torture. We closely follow his work and that of the UN committee against torture, chaired by Mr. Peter Burns, a Canadian independent expert.

Canada is a strong proponent of measures to prevent and prohibit torture and attaches great importance to effective action by the United Nations against torture. Canada supports mechanisms that examine extra-judicial executions or torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in specific countries. We believe there should be a strong and effective international mechanism with the capacity to make on site visits to places of detention, particularly when there have been allegations of torture. To this end, we have been actively participating in the working group to elaborate an optional protocol to the convention against torture.

We have also provided financial assistance to the cause against torture. Canada contributes $60,000 annually to the United Nations fund for victims of torture. The aim of the fund is to support the medical and psychological treatment and services for torture victims through rehabilitation centres and programs worldwide. More than 115 humanitarian organizations in 53 countries have been assisted by the fund. In Canada the fund has supported centres of treatment in Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver.

One of our key foreign policy priorities is to ensure that there can be no impunity for acts of torture wherever they occur. Canada took a leadership role in the negotiation and adoption of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. As hon. members will recall the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced in this House on April 11 the welcome news of the deposit of the 60th ratification for the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. With the Rome statute's entry into force coming up on July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court will be a reality. The court will have jurisdiction to try those accused of the most serious crimes known to humankind, including acts of torture that amount to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

As these initiatives attest, Canada has been an active supporter of international efforts to eliminate torture. Given Canada's level of engagement internationally, some might offer the opinion that it is hypocritical for Canada not to accede to the inter-American convention to prevent and punish torture, the question before us tonight. That assertion must be rejected. Our commitment to the goal of the elimination of torture should not be measured by the number of international treaties to which we are a party, but rather by how effectively we implement our international obligations.

As a recent editorial in the Ottawa Citizen entitled “Wronging Rights” noted, progress on protecting rights should not be confused with negotiating new international human rights agreements. Our approach should be to ensure that governments actually respect human rights in practice.

No one questions the aims of the inter-American convention. They are laudable. Similarly, it is generally accepted that the UN convention against torture provides higher standards and stronger protections than the OAS convention. Canadian practice has always been to focus our efforts in the effective implementation of the stronger human rights instruments rather than in the ratification of a weaker convention that may ultimately compete with and thereby dilute the strength of the existing UN convention against torture.

The third key point relevant to this debate is that Canada remains fully committed to this hemisphere and to the OAS. Since joining that organization in 1990, Canada has worked in partnership with the 33 other active member states to develop and implement a hemispheric agenda for the benefit of all citizens of the Americas. The OAS is central to our hemispheric policy and has provided an excellent venue to promote our policies on good governance, human rights and democracy.

The fact that we are not a party to the inter-American convention against torture should not be seen as reflecting a lack of support for regional instruments. Indeed, regional initiatives can be critical in building momentum toward the establishment of global norms.

In the initiative to ban landmines for example, the member states of the OAS provided leadership in adopting a regional ban on landmines. This achievement was a key development in the path which led to the Ottawa convention. However that is not the situation we are facing here. There already exists a global instrument which enjoys broad support. Our efforts should be focused on encouraging greater support internationally for the UN convention so that it might enjoy universal acceptance.

I would like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie for his motion which has enabled this House to debate and examine Canada's policy with respect to the elimination of torture. We need to be pragmatic in our approach and focus our efforts where they can have the best effect, namely on promoting the implementation and effective ratification of the UN convention against torture and the strong protection it offers against such heinous acts.