Alan Tonks

[Wetlands, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Canadian Wetlands Stewardship Conference is being held here in Ottawa this week. The three day conference brings together a wide range of resource sector groups, conservation organizations, government agencies and individual Canadians sharing a keen interest in the conservation of Canada's wetlands. It is being held at an opportune time as this past Sunday was Global Wetlands Day.

Wetlands are exceptionally diverse and productive ecosystems. They play a vital role in filtering and purifying our water. They provide habitat to over 30% of the species at risk in Canada. They also store large quantities of carbon, making wetlands a key resource as we address climate change issues.

Despite their tremendous importance to our nation, many of Canada's wetlands have been destroyed and those that remain are often under pressure from competing land use. While heartening progress has been made across Canada in wetlands conservation, it is critical that we collectively redouble our efforts to ensure that wetlands are protected for future generations.

[Tragic Events, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the thoughts and sympathy of all Canadians are with the friends and families of the seven students of Strathcona-Tweedsmuir school in Calgary who died this weekend in a terrible avalanche.

Ben Albert was a scholarship recipient who played junior varsity volleyball and was in his first year at the school.

Daniel Arato had a great sense of humour and was known for juggling while riding a unicycle in the Terry Fox Run.

Scott Broshko was on a number of school sports teams and played in the school jazz and concert bands.

Alex Pattillo was an artist who performed in many of the school's musicals.

Michael Shaw was an accomplished sailor who was also on the junior varsity basketball and volleyball teams.

Marissa Staddon was a scholarship recipient who competed in the junior national skating championships, enjoyed mountain climbing with her father and played in the school band.

Jeff Trickett was an honours student who played in the school band and was an active sportsman.

Canadians feel the pain of the loss of these enthusiastic and accomplished young people. I ask the House to join with me in expressing our deepest condolences and regret at this tragic accident.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the House will soon be asked to vote in support of the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. There have been impassioned debates over the past few weeks, on both sides of the House, regarding this contentious issue.

In listening to my hon. colleagues speak on Kyoto, I note it is apparent that this debate comes down to the central issue of the relationship between the environment and the economy.

I share some of my colleagues' concerns about the impact that the implementation of Kyoto will have on the economy. With this in mind, however, it is important that the Government of Canada work toward the goal of protecting the environment while ensuring the present and future growth of the Canadian economy.

It has been noted that environmental change knows no political boundaries, and in acknowledging this fact it is obvious that only through a multilateral agreement like Kyoto can any meaningful change be accomplished.

Within the context of this agreement, Canada should lead the international community in addressing climate change that threatens present and future generations.

A vote in favour of the motion to support ratification will signal to Canadians and the world--

[Health Care, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on November 27 Mr. Romanow released his long anticipated report on the future of health care in Canada.

The national debate that is currently taking place focuses on the financial considerations of health care, which government has jurisdiction over which area and the values upon which the health care system is built. It is critical however that we not lose sight of what is more fundamental to a quality health care system. All citizens have a right to expect an appropriate level of care that we, their elected representatives, are accountable to provide.

Romanow and Kirby make it clear that Canadians must have enough doctors and nurses to serve them, enough beds in the hospital in which they can stay, timely surgery for painful problems and emergency service at the closest hospital when their lives are in jeopardy.

The citizens of Canada support our public health care system and want their elected representatives to provide the tools now to improve upon its strengths, fix its weaknesses and most important, be there for their time in need.

The time is now for the government to act on behalf of all Canadians for a quality health care system.

[San Giuliano di Puglia, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are members of the House who represent towns and villages from across this land who can testify to the special closeness that exists between families and neighbours, especially in rural areas.

It is therefore shockingly clear to the House what the devastating impact would be if those events that occurred a short time ago in San Giuliano di Puglia, Campobasso region of Italy, had occurred in any part of our country.

Today, as a result of the devastating earthquake that rocked the region, there is not one family in the town that has escaped the tragedy of losing a beloved child.

In addition, as winter conditions threaten, nearly 3,100 people are living in tents and local authorities are desperately and courageously trying to deal with emergency conditions.

Throughout this country's history, Canadians have benefited from that special quality of love of family and community that is characteristic of Italians and what they have contributed to Canada. In this spirit of extended family, I would like to express our profound sympathy for the grieving families of San Giuliano di Puglia.

[Committees of the House, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader.

Yesterday in a curious manoeuvre the Canadian Alliance denied unanimous consent to have all standing committees up and running by refusing to concur in the report to establish membership.

Can the minister tell the House and all Canadians when the standing committees will finally be able to get on with the work of the House of Commons for all Canadians?

[Petitions, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, similar to other petitioners, I have a petition to present on behalf of petitioners in York South--Weston with respect to embryonic stem cell research.

The petitioners are in favour of the research as it implicates on the diseases that have been mentioned, but they are concerned with respect to the ethical implications of embryonic stem cells being used for research, and support the government focusing its legislation on adult stem cells. I have affixed my name to this petition.

[Iraq, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, there are many messages that have come out. The major one is that there may be, in the near future, weapons of mass destruction. I would suggest that in the short term, regardless of the speculation vis-à-vis the internal situation in the United States, annihilating those suspicious sites would be a major message that all the people in the United States, in fact in the free world, would support fully.

[Iraq, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is my contention that the United Nations, through the Security Council, is absolutely central to finding a diplomatic resolution to the present impasse.

At this point I think it is absolutely clear that Iraq must not, in the interests of maintaining that international solidarity through the United Nations and respect for it, be able to continue to defy the Security Council and the United Nations as it does right now, never mind a future resolution.

I hope the member understands that my emphasis at this point is to continue to focus our actions through the UN.

[Iraq, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to follow the member for Edmonton Southwest. I would like to congratulate him on a very sensitive and wise analysis of the situation that is before us tonight.

I would like to add one additional point that has been indirectly referred to. The notion that there could be a nuclear capability in Iraq is probably the single most important facet of this whole notion of the world being terrorized in an unconventional sense.

It seems to be that the traditional power that is associated with diplomacy is where nations of good faith have sat down together and discussed the terms and conditions that would bring them to a peace that would be in their nation's interest and in the interest of the nations of the world.

This is skewed in very profound ways. If a leader of the nature of Saddam Hussein were to have a nuclear capability, it would be destabilizing to the point where there would be no balance in the area, but it would be the utilization of terror and international terrorism. Just the threat that he would have that capacity would change the whole way and manner that we sit down and negotiate differences. To think that possibility could be in the hands of a Saddam Hussein is, I believe, what drives the United States to the degree of concern that it has, that the world could be held hostage by a single nation unlike any other nation in the recent past.

The Indian-Pakistani situation over Kashmir has brought saner minds to bear on the situation. The notion of the level of annihilation that would be invoked on each of those nations has brought them to the point where they have backed away with the support of the international community. However that would not be the case if Iraq were to acquire, indeed if it has not already, that nuclear capability. It would destabilize the area. We simply must bring every manner of intervention that we have to bear on that possibility.

Traditionally we have done that through the United Nations, through article 24, which was given the responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security, and is defined in terms of collective responsibility which was discharged to the authority of the Security Council. This is what gives a decision to use force its legitimacy. When we decided, incidentally, to use that force against Iraqi aggression in 1991, the international community, through the Security Council, was the legitimization for that action.

The substance of the role that we have played so far has been to bring a multilateral solution, through the United Nations, to bear on the situation with respect to Iraq. I believe, having listened to the three evening debates, that still is the correct course.

I can only add one constructive piece of advise as a result of everything that has been said. Inflicting harm on innocent Iraqi people has to be considered. As it has been suggested, there will be a huge rebuilding program, and still remains without a war, required in Iraq as it is in Afghanistan. If we wish to replace the terrorization by the administration of Saddam Hussein with a regime that is guided by human rights, natural justice and rule of law, then we have a huge job to do.

What has happened to the innocent Iraqi citizens is a result of the refusal of the regime that terrorizes Iraq to allow food in and by it not coming to agreement with the resolutions that would open the door to the kind of aid that would go into Iraq to start to rebuild and work toward these democratic institutions. None of these things can happen until there is an agreement that opens the doors to the inspections that were called for under earlier Security Council resolutions of the United Nations.

My take on the situation is that we must support the United States in gaining unequivocal access to inspections within Iraq. We should advise that there is the capacity to be very selective should there be any compromising on the part of Iraq with respect to allowing those sites to be inspected. If they do not allow the inspections then the full military might of a multilateral force would be brought to bear on those sites. That would be a judicious use of the absolute capability, which is undeniable, of not only the United States but the free nations of the world that would join it.

I say that just as one additional approach to preciseness because it seems to me that people are alarmed at the ad hoc nature of intelligence gathering and what it tells us we should do or where we are with respect to Saddam Hussein. However, the one thing that is quite clear in everyone's mind is that his regime must not be allowed to advance any further in terms of biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction and the ability for him to change the conventional negotiations that we have enjoyed through the United Nations and through responsible state to state agreements.

It is with respect to being more precise, in the spirit that the previous speaker has spoken so eloquently, that if I were advising the President of the United States--and we did have a similar debate earlier if the House recalls when we were advising our Prime Minister what to tell the president when he was going to see him just prior to the Afghanistan initiative--I would, with great humility, tell him to be very precise, at least at the beginning, with the wording of the Security Council resolution, that we would support the United States in gaining that preciseness, and that, in terms of military operations, we should be very tactically correct and exact in order not to further harm the innocent Iraqi civilian population and lose the credibility of the international community. When we take action and we take it together, we take it with the strength of our convictions, our commitment to democracy and the values of our countries to allow the Iraqi people the freedom that would make them a part of the family of nations.

However, in order to do that we must be very careful in carrying out the mission that we have in terms of the international community and our leadership within it.