Derek Lee

[Supply, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I resist the temptation to get into the debate of how one can make peace by making war, but in the end if enforcement is necessary, it will have to be addressed.

While the Wyatt Earp approach is not the best one, occasionally someone has to stand up and deal with an issue. I think Canadians appreciate that from time to time. Right now I think Canadians want to observe and make an informed judgment in the multilateral arena of the United Nations and in consultation with all of our allies. We will make the best decision when that day comes, if it comes.

[Supply, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the last time the House debated this a few days ago I had the privilege to speak for a few moments before the debate ended at about 1:30 in the morning. Consequently my speech was truncated. Therefore I am delighted to have a chance to, if not complete the speech that never was fully given, at least make a few remarks on behalf of my constituents from Scarborough--Rouge River.

The issue today is Canada's position on sending troops to Iraq. Certainly that decision is yet to be made. It is a very important debate and members on both sides of the House are letting the House and the government know where they stand.

Nobody wants a war, and I am not even sure that war is the right term to be used here. I prefer to think of the term “military engagement” or “enforcement action” in the event that something does mature.

I was disappointed last night to hear a news item, which said something like Iraq had indicated that it was prepared to agree to provide additional and more information about its weapons. That was disappointing because to me it meant that Iraq had not been forthcoming previously. It meant that our friends in the United States were correct when they said that Iraq was lying, that it was not being forthright and that it was hiding information.

Perhaps, a little naively, I had hoped that there would not be weapons and that Iraq had done its best although under some disability to deal with the issue. I do not know and Canadians do not know if that news report is accurate. However if it is accurate, that means the powers that be here and in other world capitals cannot fail to take note of the fact the Iraqis have not bellied up to the trough and may not be doing so now. This is a serious issue.

I can see the news reports, I can see the military build-up and I can see Canada struggling with this issue. Nobody wants to go to war. Nobody wants to put our armed forces in harm's way, at least in a way that can be messy, death-like and costly not just for now but for many years.

Therefore I start off with that sense of not really wanting to go there. If forced to go there and if Canadians feel that they have to do it for our security or world security, then we have done it in the past and I am pretty sure that Canadians will want to do it again.

I want to make a short remark about the business of bringing forth intelligence information. Maybe we really have not seen everything there is to see. Strategically, if we have intelligence information, we do not want to make it publicly available. If we do, two things happen. We may give up our source and we may give up our edge. No country that invests millions and billions of dollars, such as the U.S. does, wants to give up its edge or its source. Sources may be very sensitive. Therefore we may not see everything.

I am pretty sure from time to time our leaders in Canada see things on the security side that Canadians do not need to see and which we in the House do not see. They make decisions for our own security based on that information.

What should we do if things mature the way they seem to be moving now? I hope they do not go the distance. However I want to point out that the Americans appear to have been our allies. We appear to have been their allies. It is about 189 years since the war of 1812. That is a lot of allied companionship over the years. There have been a lot of world issues and Canadians have a strong bond with our American cousins and vice versa in many of these conflicts.

It is true that we did not march off with the Americans in the Mexican war, the Spanish civil war or the Spanish-American war. However we have had common cause with our American cousins for many years and that is not likely to change in the next few weeks.

Canadians have also signalled to me that if anything matures, it must be on a multilateral UN based approach. I realize we do not necessarily have the final resolution of the UN Security Council. I realize some countries agree and others do not agree. However Canada does not sit on the Security Council. Therefore this issue will evolve pretty much with exchanges between diplomats and the odd phone call between world leaders. Some phone calls have already occurred and they will continue over the next few days. In fairness that is how some of these things happen internationally now and there really is no another way to do it. They will not take 30 to 60 days to bring a big conference together to deal with this. The decisions will be made as time allows by heads of government. I know our government is a part of that.

If there is to be a military engagement of some tactical or strategic definition, it is pretty clear now, for better or for worse, that Canadians will not be in a position to be on the frontlines. If something matures now, we are simply not there. We have naval ships in the area but as everyone has seen it takes weeks and perhaps months to build up, in a modern military sense, forces necessary to engage properly, tactically and efficiently in an engagement of that type. We are not there other than our naval presence.

If Canada is asked to be a part of a coalition, hopefully with a UN sanction, we will be in a position to contribute ground forces, special operations forces, naval, which is already there, and some air. We have those abilities and are capable of providing them, provided the government has the support of the House. If it has to act, I am confident the government will have the support of the House and Canadians. The House does its very best to speak for Canadians. I hope it does not come to that, but it appears we are moving very quickly down that lane.

As I said, the news item last night appears to confirm that Iraq has been holding out and may still be holding out. I regret that. I hope some Iraqis regret that. I know the countries with whom we will be united, if there is to be any kind of a coalition from the UN discussions, feel the same way.

Canada has an armed forces of which Canadians are very proud. It does not take much to make us proud of them. They have contributed over the country's whole history. We have our naval forces, some of which are present in the gulf now and our special operations forces, referred to as the JTF2, which were in Afghanistan. The JTF2 are capable of getting there fairly quickly if needed.

We also have our air contingent. Most countries cannot compete with the huge American air forces that could be put into play. Ours is a small but efficient air component that could be useful in some ways.

There are also our ground forces, which most of us in this place will acknowledge to be just about as good as can be in the world at peacekeeping. Some are pretty darn good at peace making. In the event there is an engagement, I cannot imagine that our government would not be in discussions with other governments about our ability to contribute to a force that would involve itself in a peacekeeping resolution, if not in Iraq, in another the theatre. Apparently there is still peacekeeping to be done in Afghanistan and other areas of the world. As everyone knows, we already have a large contingent in Bosnia.

I will close by saying that this particular member, as he hears from his constituents, does not want to engage in any type of a military action. This must be a last resort. In the event we are called upon, we will have to stand up like big boys and girls and meet the challenge that is there internationally. In a way it is being constructed for us by other countries and other events, but in the end we have a tradition and a history of which we are proud. I cannot see Canadians picking a course that would prevent us from playing a responsible role in the relatively volatile world that confronts us now and in the weeks ahead.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the subject matter of today's debate is actually excellent. I congratulate the Canadian Alliance for bringing the general subject matter together.

The hon. member knows that debate among parliamentarians and Canadians is happening in other forums. I know it is happening out in the lobby on his side, in the lobby on our side, in parliamentary committees and in caucus meetings. I know my colleagues and his colleagues are engaged both together and across the floor. It is happening in the offices of government in diplomatic intercourse. The debate is going on everywhere and this place is a very important place for Canadians.

The motion that has been moved today invites us all to vote on the issue, vote on confidence or on the subject matter, after we have already made a decision as a country to put our forces into some engagement somewhere if we have to do it. I suggest that will not happen in any other country in the world, after we make the move with the confidence of the House, because if it is not there we will surely know about it. Voting after we put our troops out in the theatre is not the right thing to do and that is what the motion today invites us to prepare for and do. I suggest that is the wrong thing.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, we have had a very good debate here this evening on this issue and although it will not be concluded with a vote there is always a possibility that as things evolve we will at some point be asked to stand up.

I will speak a little bit, without repeating things that have been spoken about by colleagues on both sides of the House, on two or three perspectives on this issue: Canada's role at this time in history and Canada's role leading up to the present. I tend to view it as a continuity.

Some around the House have suggested that Canada is changing in the way it is operating internationally. In my view, I do not think Canada has changed at all. We have a consistent record of peacekeeping, a consistent record of peacemaking where necessary and a consistent record of participation in collective security initiatives at the UN and with NATO. We have a record that goes back to Korea, the Middle East, Congo, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo. Should Canada be called upon to contribute to a collective security action in Iraq again I am very confident that Canada will play a role.

There are of course some prerequisites before that happens but I am sure Canadians will accept that Canada must continue to play a role with the United Nations and with NATO, albeit in different circumstances and with different preconditions. We have done it before and we will do it again.

One of the members of the New Democratic Party asked whatever happened to Lester Pearson's way of doing things. He was one of our great Canadians who won a peacekeeping medal. My recollection is that when he won the peacekeeping medal it followed Canada's placement of its forces into the Gaza Strip in the Middle East for peacekeeping purposes.

Canadians' use of their military for collective security is not new. It is continuing. I think that essentially is the issue we are being asked to address here.

I want to make three points, which may have been discussed by others, but perhaps not, but I want to make sure that perspective is on the record. In my view, if something matures--and I will not call it a war if it is a war, it will be a collective security action--it will not have evolved out of 9/11 but out of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, what we called the gulf war of 11 or 12 years ago. This is, in a sense, unfinished business from that war. At the conclusion of that military engagement Iraq agreed to disarm.

At this time, most observers believe Iraq has not disarmed. At this time there are inspectors continuing the work, as has been discussed, of trying to determine how much Iraq has or has not disarmed.

Over this past period, just to reinforce the point, we have maintained fairly rigorous sanctions on Iraq, sanctions that have actually harmed human beings in Iraq. We have maintained no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq, and other things have gone on such as minor military tactical engagements and special forces operations. These things have gone on over the last 10 years on the fringes, not necessarily in the headlines. Iraq continues to be a problem and has not yet shown to be disarmed or disengaged from those weapons that we know it had.

I would also suggest, in the event that we go into a military engagement in this case, that it could end with the lifting of sanctions, with the streaming of aid and with the channeling of resources that are already in Iraq toward the people who need it there, and then a reconstruction.

I want to talk about the evidence of weapons of mass destruction or non-evidence of weapons of mass destruction. In the business of intelligence gathering it is not always possible to make known what one knows.

There are two good reasons for that. I am talking about the intelligence gathering in relation to whether Iraq has or does not have weapons of mass destruction in existence, buried, hidden or whatever.

The two reasons for not making disclosures are: one, we give up our source. By telling our adversary what we know, we likely have given up our source, and we need that source. Second, we give up our edge, our advantage. We give up our advantage because we know what he does not know that we know.

Those are reasons why the United States and our allies may not want at this point in time to give up that information. If there is an end game in process, then they give up their source and then they make their intelligence known.

If February 5 is a date when the U.S. and others are prepared to give up information to the United Nations, then the end game is in process and Saddam Hussein should be aware of it.

In conclusion, as my time has run out, if there is an engagement, this engagement will not be like the others. If we must be involved, then I think we will be involved.

[Petitions, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains 39 signatures from Canadians in the Toronto area who want to bring to the attention of the House and the government instances of persecution of minorities and violence perpetrated against minorities, particularly Hindu minorities, in the country of Bangladesh.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to work with the government of Bangladesh to ensure that Bangladesh upholds its obligations under the international conventions.

[Petitions, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

The first petition contains 634 signatures from individuals in the Toronto area who bring to the attention of the House their concern over instances of child pornography, including pedophilia and sado-masochistic activities involving children. They call upon the government to ensure that such exploitation of children is dealt with firmly and swiftly.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully. The last half of the hon. member's speech did not have a lot to do with parliamentary procedural matters, but it struck me, and this is just a very brief comment, that the hon. member seems to dislike democracy when the vote does not go his way. I did not see the hon. member objecting yesterday when the government members voted, to a person, en bloc, to support a motion put forward by one of his colleagues, a motion that was adopted in the House yesterday. I saw no objection at all when every member on this side of the House voted in favour. His objection seems to be that everybody on this side of the House votes against something that he is in favour of or vice versa; that is really not a very good definition of democracy from his point of view.

I have noticed frequently in the House how often his own party votes as a group without dividing among themselves. So if it is okay for the New Democratic Party members to vote as a bloc, it must be okay for the government members to vote as a bloc. I hope the hon. member was not objecting to the democratic right of all the members on the government side to think in the same way, to have the same views and to vote together like they did yesterday in favour of a motion put forward by one of his own colleagues; that is not democracy. This is democracy.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the regulatory burden in this country is quite high but it is an essential element of our legislative umbrella. The previous government and the current Liberal government both took steps to address regulatory reform in the late eighties and early nineties. Between 1993 and 1997 two bills were before this place which would have altered the format for making and changing regulations. It was perhaps some resistance from members on this side of the House and on his side of the House that prevented those bills from advancing because of the method suggested.

As a result each of the departments under the supervision of Treasury Board have in their own way altered the way they create and get rid of regulations with a view to reducing the regulatory burden. Every new regulation has a regulatory impact analysis statement attached to it. There is a process involved. There is no automatic sunsetting but there may be some sunsetting in some regulations.

In small steps the government has accomplished a lot of what generically the member is urging. In the whole field of regulatory activity the statute size would be this big and the regulatory burden alone would be this big. It will always be that way and it is a constant effort to keep the regulatory burden financially and economically viable, and to make it effective for the purpose intended. I do not have a magic bullet and I know he does not either.

The member wants to look at the issue. It is something we should always be looking at either on a department by department basis or on a cross government basis. As soon as the pain gets too great or the burden gets too great, as soon as inefficiencies show up, at that point Parliament will probably intervene and look more closely at it.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a debate today dealing with procedural reforms in the House of Commons, a subject which many or most Canadians regard as not too terribly interesting, something slightly more exciting than watching paint dry. Some of us are forced to take a different view and that is because in reality this chamber is probably the linchpin of our democracy.

There is no other place in the country where the people of Canada can place their views, infuse a chamber with perspective on issues and in reality, control the future evolution of policy and law in the country. There is no other place, not in Canada and not in the world, where Canadians can do that except in this House.

As a linchpin for our democracy the rules that govern us here are actually quite important. Sometimes the rules we have influence the culture in the House; at other times the culture we have in the House influences the evolution of the rules. At the end of the day what we have around this place, the rules written and unwritten that we use, are a major factor in the evolution of our democracy.

There is a philosophical difference that comes up from time to time. I take one view but I have heard other people express another. The House itself in my view is not an empty vessel that is filled with a government every four years or so. It is not a place that is empty until it gets filled with a government. In my view it is not that. The House has a life beyond the two extremes of emptiness and government. A House has a life, a character, a vitality and a presence that recognizes all Canadians.

If the prevailing view is that it is just an empty vessel that is filled with a government, one would question what role there is for an opposition member. The role of an opposition member is as full and vital as the role of a member on the government side. That is because this is the House of Commons and it is not an appendage of the Government of Canada. It is a separate, distinct and vital place that informs and leads the rest of governance in the country.

As we move through elections a few of the bodies may change and the government may change, but the purpose and role, ethics and culture of this place carry on. This place is not a church and it is not a corporate boardroom. No one, Canadians anywhere, should wish that upon this place. It is a unique entity in our democratic system.

It is not quiet like a church and it does not have rules of order like a boardroom with a chairman. It just is a different kind of institution. While it may not be appreciated by all Canadians because they do not have the privilege like all of us do of being here and of living the place, that is a fact. It is a place where we shape policy and legislation and adopt legislation all in the public interest for Canada.

Over the last year or two, being one of those people who do like to watch paint dry from time to time, I prepared a booklet on the subject. There were some 17 suggestions for members of the House of Commons in fortifying their efforts to keep this place as a healthy democratic institution. Not all of the items that I urged upon colleagues involved actual reform. I titled it “Backbench Exercises”, a little like let us get out there, do our push-ups and stay fit as an institution.

There were some suggestions for reform. As an example, I suggested we alter the way we do the Friday question period to allow specific focus on one ministry rather than the shotgun approach that we have normally in each of our question periods.

I suggested that we could make use of a second chamber for debate, as now exists in Westminster. A second chamber would allow members, not as government or opposition, to take up motions, petitions and other matters that do not require a vote, but which require, from the perspective of the member, a need to be placed on the public record. Members around this place struggle to find time for private members' business. A second chamber would allow that to happen.

I suggested that we need to develop a protocol of some sort to deal with section 33 issues of the charter that may come down from the courts. We have not had a big one yet, but one day it will come. We will have to wing it on how we handle it in this place and we should try to sort something out before that happens.

Let me focus on two things on which I want to urge reform. The first one is a relatively easy one. It is not so much reform as making use of it and maybe tweaking the rules a little.

Before access to information was legislated by this place, access to information for citizens to gain access to government, the mechanism used by parliamentarians was a motion for the production of papers. That particular procedure in the House was used for over a century. It is used in the House of Commons in the U.K. It is quite old. It was the means by which a member of Parliament could get access to government information.

However, since the introduction of the legislated access to information for citizens the production of papers procedure used in the House has not been used as much and there are even instances of members of Parliament using the access to information legislation.

As a result the production of papers procedure has fallen into disuse. I am a little nervous that it may atrophy, shrivel up and disappear. I am of the view that this place should maintain a parallel, tandem, healthy, functioning production of papers mechanism. While the House always has the authority to do it, the individual member should have that mechanism available. We ought to keep it and use it more than we do now.

The second item I want to deal with is on the subject of disallowance. As the House knows, under chapter XIV of the Standing Orders the House has the ability to disallow a federal government regulation where that regulation does not comply with the authorizing statute or other scrutiny criteria. The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations manages that envelope and reports to the House from time to time on matters of that nature. Over the last 10 years there have been eight or nine disallowances of federal government regulations.

In that procedure, which is governed totally now by the Standing Orders, it appears that the committee and the House are only able to deal with regulations passed by the governor in council, ministers, and the Prime Minister. They can be disallowed and we have been able to do that in appropriate cases.

However there is a class of regulation authorized to be made by agencies outside government, for example, the CRTC and the Canadian Transportation Agency. These agencies have the ability to make regulations on their own and the disallowance authority, the disallowance powers in the rules, does not apparently allow the disallowance of those regulations. It is rather absurd and silly that the House should have the ability to disallow regulations made by the cabinet but not regulations made by these other institutions.

When our rules were first put in place it was said at the time that we would get around to fixing it up a little later once we saw how the procedure worked. In my view the procedure works extremely well. That is an outstanding housekeeping matter. The disallowance power is proving itself to be an important tool used by the committee and by the House in ensuring federal regulations continue to comply with the law, the charter, the rules of the House and the authorizing statute.

I urge that it be on the list. Let us complete that mechanism and ensure that we have a healthy, strong disallowance of power.

[Tanzania, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the House a developing conflict between people on the island of Zanzibar, part of the United Republic of Tanzania. The matter was brought to my attention by a Canadian working in Africa and by Human Rights Watch.

On January 27, 2001 police and military on Zanzibar responded to political demonstrations at four locations by shooting and killing 35 persons and wounding 600.

I raise this now because I recall with sadness a human rights conflict question raised with me about 12 years ago involving a certain problem in Rwanda and where we failed to act and which evolved into one of the ugliest genocides perpetrated in the 20th century. We cannot make this mistake again.

I call upon the Government of Tanzania to act on the results of the commission of inquiry it has put in place, and ensure that conflicts based on class, race and religion are not exacerbated. I call on Canada and the Commonwealth partners to collaborate with Tanzania in ensuring that measures are taken that will induce political and racial harmony in that country before the price of neglect becomes more than humanity can pay.