Irwin Cotler

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of fundamental differences. When we talk about Iraq, we are talking about a state that has an historical record of perpetrating the worst of international crimes. When we talk about Israel, we are talking about a democratic state that is seeking, in compliance with international law, to exercise its right of self-defence against the most horrific of terrorist attacks, some of which are even subvented by Iraq, which has been providing subventions to suicide bombers.

Also, the United Nations resolutions of which we are speaking with respect to Iraq are United Nations Security Council resolutions which have fundamental authoritative and binding power under international law, and Iraq has systematically violated all these resolutions.

With respect to Israel, it has complied on the issue of UN Security Council resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 and 338, with respect to conflict resolutions in the Middle East. The issue there has been one with regard to United Nations General Assembly resolutions which have a different authority, both moral and legal, under international law in that regard.

Finally, there have been some issues about the whole relationship with respect to Israel and the United Nations, which our own government has spoken about, including at times the United Nations, by reason of a coalition of undemocratic states binding together and banding together to single out Israel for differential and discriminatory treatment, which they have been able to do under the United Nations General Assembly but not under the UN Security Council.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to organize my remarks around a series of questions and then proceed in sequence to answer them.

Number one, does the situation in Iraq pose a threat to international peace and security? More particularly, is there a clear and present danger that Saddam Hussein has the intent and the capacity to develop, transfer and use weapons of mass destruction?

Number two, what are the remedies available, political, diplomatic, economic and juridical to counter, contain and address this threat? Again, more particularly, have all the remedies short of military force been exhausted? This has to be a bedrock principle in our approach to appreciating the international and indeed Canadian domestic strategy with respect to Iraq. Have all remedies short of military force been exhausted?

Number three, what has been the experience and what is the status of the United Nations weapons inspection regime?

Number four, what role can and should the United Nations, particularly the UN Security Council now play in countering the Iraq threat?

Number five, does a democratic country like the United States or a coalition of democratic countries have the right to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq on the grounds that it constitutes a threat to international peace and security?

Number six, what are the risks involved in the use of military action and what are the risks involved in forgoing military action if all other remedies have been exhausted, short of military action, and we have come to the point where we have to make that decision?

Finally, what is the specific and distinguishable contribution that Canada can make?

I am not sure whether time will permit me to answer these questions, but I will take them now seriatim. I will begin with the first, whether the situation in Iraq poses a threat to international peace and security and in particular, whether there is a clear and present danger that the Saddam Hussein regime has both the intent and capacity to develop, transfer and use weapons of mass destruction.

The record demonstrates that Saddam Hussein has historically constituted a threat to international peace and security, whether one speaks of the acts of genocide against his own people in the Halabja genocide in 1988, the war crimes and crimes against humanity in the war with Iran, the crimes against the peace which has been called, if I may borrow from his own phrase, the mother of all international crimes in the acts of aggression against Kuwait, or in the torture, execution and repression of his own civilians. One could go on and on. The record is clear. The importance of that record is that Saddam Hussein has demonstrated the will and the capacity to commit the most horrific of international crimes.

It is no less clear that Iraq under Saddam Hussein has the intent and the capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons, retains the capacity to produce mass casualty chemical weapons and is on the threshold of acquiring weapons grade material for building nuclear weapons or constructing one on its own.

In other words, if Iraq is not yet a clear and present danger to international peace and security, its intent, coupled with its capacity and the historical record, places us in the position of appreciating that it is certainly in the process of evolving into such a clear and present and imminent danger to international peace and security as well as to regional instability and a threat within the Middle East itself. This leads me to the second question.

Given the remedies available, what can one characterize as the spectrum of remedies that we can identify as having been used and that can be used to contain, to counter and to redress the Iraqi threat?

First there will be political démarche, démarche for member states in the international community on a bilateral level and on a regional level, in particular the League of Arab States to whom the threat to international peace and security involves also, as I indicated, a threat to Middle East peace and security. We know that these démarches, from a political point of view, are being made by the Arab states themselves to Iraq.

Second, there are diplomatic remedies in the form of démarches from the United Nations and its specialized agencies, be it the Atomic Energy Commission or UNSCOM and the weapons inspection regime and the like.

Third are the economic remedies in the form of the economic sanctions.

Finally, interestingly enough, given the overall explosion in international criminal law, there are legal remedies. For example, there is the indictment of Saddam Hussein as a war criminal. It is a remedy however that has not been used, notwithstanding the salutary effects it may have in so indicting him, both with regard to isolating him in the international community as a kind of pariah of such a nature that ought to deter any other states from having any other relationships with him, if not also encouraging an opposition in that regard, not unlike what indictments have done with war criminals in other killing fields.

This brings me to the third point. What has been the experience and the status of the United Nations inspections regime in its relationship with Iraq, both from the beginning of that inspection regime to the present day?

An examination of the evidence demonstrates on the part of Iraq a pattern of obstruction, obfuscation, deception and denial, of accepting inspections without conditions and then imposing conditions, even at gunpoint, so as to obstruct, obfuscate and in fact immunize itself from any inspections regime.

This brings me to the fourth point. What role can and should the UN now play in countering the Iraqi threat given this pattern of obstruction and denial of a Union Nations inspection regime?

First, if there cannot be an agreement obtained between the United Nations inspection regime and Iraq with respect to a full, unfettered and unconditional access to an international inspection regime allowing for inspections anywhere, any time, including for example the presidential palaces of Saddam Hussein which thus far have been immune from inspection but which have been characterized as clearly able to be weapons of mass production factories, then the UN Security Council will have to unequivocally authorize such a weapons inspection regime supported by a chapter VII authority under the UN charter. It is a triggering mechanism whereby any obstruction or obfuscation, deception or denial by Iraq will result in a determination by the United Nations Security Council that such behaviour constitutes a threat to international peace and security and that such a determination will include also the authorization for the use of force under chapter VII in the name of and under the authority of the United Nations Security Council and, in effect, in the name of and under the authority of the community of nations. In effect this will constitute authority for forceable humanitarian intervention.

I prefer to use that approach rather than the terminology or characterization of this as war, not unlike for some of the authority that was given with respect to the NATO intervention in Kosovo. At that time the United Nations determined that the situation in Kosovo was a threat to international peace and security. It triggered a chapter VII authority. From that, NATO inferred that it had specific authority to militarily intervene although that had some questionable authority at the time; it was an inferred and not expressly a specific one. However the UN Security Council could now make this a specific one.

This brings me to the fifth question. Does a democratic country such as the United States, or a coalition of democratic countries, have the right under international law to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq on the grounds that Iraq constitutes a threat to international peace and security?

There would be two main sources of legal authority for that kind of strike by the United States or a coalition of democratic states. One would be the Kosovo precedent, that once the United Nations has determined, if it indeed does determine, that the situation in Iraq constitutes a threat to international peace and security but does not expressly subsequently also authorize forcible military intervention, then a coalition of democratic states, following upon the Kosovo precedent, can make, if it wishes, that kind of inference.

However, the situation in Iraq may have to demonstrate that it indeed constitutes such a threat to international peace and security for this first rubric to in fact be legally persuasive.

The second would be article 51 of the United Nations charter, the principle of self-defence against an armed attack. Here one will have to refine in the post-September 11 age, which is what I think the Bush doctrine has been trying to do, that there is such a doctrine of pre-emptive military intervention in anticipation of a threat to international peace and security, if not also a threat to the United States and the other democratic countries specifically.

In my view, neither of those two sources would be legally persuasive, particularly if one could not establish, and one is not yet established, that the United Nations has made a determination that the situation in Iraq constitutes a threat to international peace and security and that the United Nations has also, in light of that determination, arrived at a conclusion that the development, use and transfer by Iraq of weapons of mass destruction constitutes such a clear and present danger that it constitutes an armed attack under article 51 of the charter.

My own view is that until we reach those two points, if we do reach them, then any legal pre-emptive strike by the United States or a coalition of democratic states would not be anchored in an international legal authority.

Finally, because I know I will not have time for the distinguished role that Canada might play, what are the risks involved in using military action or the risks involved in not using military action?

As I address the House it is clear from the evidence that we know that over the past 14 months Iraq has been seeking to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes capable of being used as components of centrifuges to enriched uranium. It is also developing a capacity to use drone aircraft to spray chemical and biological agents. It also appears to be expanding its efforts to enlist terrorists as carriers of weapons of mass destruction.

If indeed those facts can be demonstrated to be true then we can be relatively certain of two conclusions: one, Iraq is determined to not only develop nuclear weapons but the capacity also to deliver them; and second, that it does not yet have that capacity.

This brings us to the third and most difficult and disputed issue and conclusion. How much time do we have before these weapons become operational and is it enough to warrant further efforts short of attack, such as continuing UN inspections and other diplomatic action?

The Bush administration says no, that time is on Iraq's side and that as soon as it develops a nuclear capacity all hope of inspections and diplomacy will be futile. Therefore they seek, at this point, authority for a pre-emptive strike and even will launch it without it.

Others say, and I put myself in that camp, that we have not yet exhausted all the other remedies available, that we have not made the appropriate determinations under international law that would legitimate a pre-emptive strike by the United Nations and that Canada can play a distinguishable role now both in developing United Nations law in that regard and in developing the spectrum of remedies that are still available to us with respect to containing and controlling Saddam Hussein's regime.

[Sri Lanka, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, while we debate the Iraq situation an historic development has been taking place behind and beyond the headlines, and I am pleased to address it on M'hatmah Gandhi's birthdate. I am referring to the beginning of a peace process in Sri Lanka--after 19 years of a tragic conflict has left 65,000 dead, 1.5 million displaced 12,000 disappeared, and untold human catastrophe.

This historic démarche was commemorated last week by the Quebec Coalition for Peace in Sri Lanka, based in my riding, which held a moving ceremony involving the diverse expatriate Sri Lankan communities for the first time in 19 years.

Canada has an important role to play in this peace process by: sharing our experience as a bilingual and multicultural federal policy; developing a rights charter; helping in the de-mining process, saving life and limb; supporting confidence building measures underlying the peace process; and mobilizing economic donor support and investment.

[Africa, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is only just that Africa be a centrepiece of next week's G-8 meeting.

Africa is the most compelling, indeed urgent, case of humanitarian concern anywhere in the world: where 1 African in 5, 160 million people, are daily victims of armed conflict with the genocide by attrition in Sudan the most alarming cri du coeur; where 260 million of the 660 million in sub-Saharan Africa live on less than $1 a day and millions face imminent starvation; where the disease and debt burden are staggering; where the most urgent crisis, and one which threatens the life of an entire continent, is the AIDS pandemic; where of the 40 million people worldwide affected with HIV, more than two thirds live in Africa; where 2.3 million Africans die every year and thousands a day, as we speak, are dying of AIDS; where 13 million children, an entire generation, have been orphaned; and where entire families and entire education systems are ravaged as parents and teachers die.

A great continent, Africa, is dying. It can only be saved and the G-8 vindicated if combating the AIDS pandemic and urgently mobilizing the necessary funds to do so is the overriding priority. Otherwise the goals of NEPAD will never be secured and its legacy will be not a Marshall Plan for the living but a requiem for the dead.

[Zimbabwe, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Zimbabwe police arrested and beat 70 people, including opposition MPs and trade unionists, who had gathered to commemorate anti-apartheid activists killed in the Soweto uprising. This is yet another manifestation of the state sanctioned violence, beatings, arrests and intimidation of opposition MPs, human rights activists, trade unionists and civil society generally. It takes place against a backdrop of impending crisis in Zimbabwe which is on the brink of a humanitarian disaster coupled with escalating political instability.

Accordingly, Canada should join with African countries like South Africa in putting pressure on Mr. Mugabe to cease and desist from all forms of state sanctioned violations of human rights; to put an end to a state orchestrated starvation policy while including the MDC in food and other distribution; to ensure the actual distribution of aid, and there is a need for massive amounts of food aid in which Canada can play a leading role, is taken out of the hands of Mr. Mugabe and put into the hands of churches, NGOs and other apolitical groups.

[The Middle East, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we awakened today to yet another horrific terrorist bombing in Jerusalem. The deliberate slaughter of innocents, where young people on their way to school or people on their way to work are singled out for killing; just as in prior terrorist outrages targeting restaurants, discos and synagogues or targeting Jews who leave their homes to go anywhere or sometimes killed in their own homes.

Indeed, this is not a suicide bombing as much as it is a genocidal bombing where the terrorists, by their own sacred covenant, intend the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews wherever they may be.

This is murder for the sake of murder, terrorism for the sake of terrorism, motivated by the notion that, as the terrorists themselves have put it, “the weakness of the Jews is that they love life too much”. So that the terrorists celebrate the killing as they glorify the genocidal bombing, an obscene terrorism that deserves the condemnation of all good people who value life, who celebrate humanity and who care about peace in the Middle East.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to relate this legislation to the foundational principles that were set forth by the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the World Wildlife Fund with respect to how prospective legislation of this kind should be evaluated. I will run through the principles as set forth by these groups and look at the present legislation in that context.

The first and most important principle is that pesticide legislation must protect the most vulnerable among us. In other words, protecting the health of the most vulnerable populations must be the benchmark for the evaluation of any pesticide. For human beings this may be a child or a senior, whereas currently pesticides are evaluated based on risk to healthy adult males. For environmental protection it may be a fish, a bird or a tadpole, depending on the nature of the pesticide and its use. It is particularly important to ensure protection for the embryo and the young of all species whose reproductive and nervous systems are developing and most easily damaged.

In that regard at present, under the existing Pest Control Products Act, modern risk assessment methods are used but they are not incorporated in the law.

Under the proposed new pest control products act, PCPA, health evaluations of pesticide would take into account sensitivities of vulnerable groups such as children and seniors There would be extra protections for infants and children. In my view it still does not go far enough and does not reach, for example, the threshold of American legislation, as has been mentioned earlier in debate in this House.

Pesticide exposure is aggregated and includes exposure through food, water and pesticide use in homes and schools, and cumulative effects of pesticides that act in the same way are considered.

Principle number two stipulates that pesticides should be considered guilty until proven innocent. In other words, the responsibility needs to be, as it is not yet now, on the applicants to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that their pesticides will not cause harm to people and wildlife. Under the proposed legislation the onus would be on the applicant to demonstrate that these pesticides would not cause harm to people and wildlife and would not be on the public to bear the burden to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a chemical is safe.

Principle number three is the importance of reviewing existing pesticides regularly. Simply put, most pesticides in use today were developed and registered for use decades ago. New data about risks to health and the environment are emerging all the time. New proposed legislation now under consideration in the House must provide for regular reviews of pesticides in the light of new data.

I would like to make specific reference to the provisions for re-evaluations and special reviews, which would include re-evaluations of older pesticides that would be mandatory 15 years after the registration of the product. A request from the public could trigger a special review of a pesticide. If a pesticide registrant does not respond when information is requested for a re-evaluation or a special review, that pesticide's registration may be cancelled or amended, again putting the burden on the pesticide registrant or applicant.

The precautionary principle would be applied during re-evaluations and special reviews. That means where there are threats that a registered pesticide could cause serious damage it would not be necessary to await full scientific certainty to take cost effective measures. The principle was set down in the recent supreme court decision in these matters.

Principle number four would ensure reporting, monitoring and follow up for adverse effect. At present there is no formal requirement for reporting or monitoring the adverse effects from a pesticide's use. Without this data reviews are difficult to undertake. Under the proposed bill pesticide applicants and registrants would be obligated to report information on the adverse effects of a pesticide.

Principle number five is that one needs to automatically ban pesticides when critical health and environmental problems are identified. In other words pesticides should be automatically banned if they build up in the food chain or pose hazards to health and the environment.

The proposal for automatic bans of pesticides in my view does not go far enough in the bill. However, the bill would provide enhanced enforcement capability through clearly defined offences, increased powers of inspectors and higher maximum penalties. For example, importation of an unregistered product could lead to a maximum fine of $500,000 and three years imprisonment. Recklessly or wilfully causing harm to the environment or causing serious bodily harm would carry the maximum penalty under the act of $1 million or three years imprisonment.

Principle number six is that the cosmetic use of pesticides should be banned. In other words, pesticides used only for cosmetic purposes are not acceptable. This is an issue to which I have spoken in the House and which is of particular concern, among other things, to the constituents of my riding. Regrettably, Bill C-53 contains no prohibition on the cosmetic use of pesticides. If the precautionary principle were to be applied the cosmetic use of pesticides would be prohibited.

In this regard we should look to the province of Quebec which is moving toward reducing and gradually eliminating the cosmetic use of pesticides. We have municipal initiatives to that effect. A co-operative federal-provincial-municipal framework would be appropriate if it were unpinned by the precautionary principle.

Principle number seven states that we should not permit registration of pesticides when alternatives are available. The essence of Bill C-53's risk management approach is to prevent registration of products that would pose unacceptable risks to human health or the environment and to manage the use of registered pesticides in a manner that would preclude unacceptable risks.

Principle number eight would ensure public participation in the regulatory system and public access to information on hazards and use. Canadians have a right to know what pesticides are being applied to the food they buy, to the parks they use and at their children's schools.

In this regard some important features of the legislation which would promote public participation include provisions for public comment prior to major decisions for full registration; access to information; support for pesticide registrations; an opportunity to request a review panel to re-examine major registration decisions; and an opportunity to request a special review of registrations. The documentation to be used as a basis for public consultation would contain a description of the product and its intended uses, a summary of the risk and value assessments, as well as the proposed decision and the rationale for it.

Principle number nine emphasizes the importance of education, awareness and support with respect to alternative and transition programs. In other words, the federal government should support the extension of education and research on alternatives to pesticide use. Farmers need support. Support for making the transition to pest management systems that reduce reliance on pesticides makes sense both ecologically and economically.

My hon. colleague also spoke to the issue when he was minister of the environment in Quebec where he introduced a legislative framework. That is the objective we should have in mind for this legislation as well.

Principle number 10 is that the precautionary principle should be enshrined throughout the bill. It is not at present. It is referenced only with regard to evaluation reviews and the like. However with regard to the supreme court decision and public policy in these matters, the precautionary principle should underpin the legislation as a whole and be read into it. I trust the courts would read this into it and incorporate it by reference throughout the legislation.

Regarding the oversight principle, there would now be a seven year parliamentary review. I would have agreed with the proposal that there be a five year review, but I am pleased there is at least some provision for oversight and review.

In conclusion, the legislation is an important first step. It incorporates some of the principles recommended by groups such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the World Wildlife Federation. However it does not go far enough. Bill C-53 deserves to be supported because it would address the important principles to which I have referred. However for the legislation to be effective regulations would need to be brought forward to give it specific powers of implementation. The PMRA should be given a statutory mandate. As I mentioned, the precautionary principle should underpin the legislation as a whole. It is at the core of public policy and how we can protect and evaluate such legislation.

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, this take note debate on health care comes at a most important and propitious time, for wherever I go in my constituency of Mount Royal, if not in the country as a whole, Canada's health care system is held out as the litmus test of society, defining who we are and what we aspire to be, a caring, sharing, responsive and compassionate people.

The federal-provincial-territorial agreement of 2000 was an important step forward as a comprehensive, sustainable and renewable health care system for the 21st century wherein, inter alia, the federal government is investing more than $21.1 billion over five years through the Canada health and social transfer agreement.

The agreement should not be measured in dollars and cents alone, however crucial the infusion of monetary resources. Most important, apart from the re-commitment to protect the integrity of the five basic principles of Canada Health Act, is the commitment to a sustainable vision of a renewed and revitalized health care system, including a commitment to work together on eight specific health care priorities, which are as follows.

One: increasing the supply of doctors, nurses and other health professionals in order to better meet current and emerging demands for health services.

Two: improving primary care, the first point of contact for Canadians with the health system, so that they can have access to the right care, by the right provider, when and where they need it.

Three: strengthening home and community care in order to relieve pressure in the more than one in five Canadian families currently caring for a sick or elderly family member at home.

Four: co-ordinating efforts to manage rising costs for pharmaceutical products, the fastest growing cost component of our health care system.

Five: supporting the development of common indicators and monitoring so that we can measure, report and improve health system performance.

Six: harnessing the potential offered by recent advances in information, Internet and communications technologies to enhance access to and better integrate the delivery of health services and electronic patient records.

Seven: investing in new and more advanced health equipment, like MRIs and CAT scans, to reduce wait times for diagnostic and treatment services and improve the quality of care.

Eight: renewing performance standards and expanding the use of standards.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Romanow interim report asserted that “for many Canadians the concept of Medicare, as expressed by the Canada Health Act, is a defining aspect of their citizenship”. Accordingly, what I would like to do now is share with the House briefly 12 principles that would underpin an equitable, universally accessible, responsive and sustainable publicly funded health system and one that, as the Romanow interim report put it, would offer “quality services to Canadians and would strike an appropriate balance between investments in prevention and health maintenance and those directed to care and treatment”.

Principle number one is health and human rights, the right to health as a fundamental human right. Recently we commemorated the 20th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the centrepiece for the promotion and protection of human rights in the country. While there was a good deal of discussion about fundamental freedoms such as freedom of religion, expression and association or about legal rights such as the right to protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, or economic, social and cultural rights, we heard very little about health and human rights despite the critical link between the two.

Simply put, we tend to ignore that there is a universally recognized, though not universally publicized, human right to health. As set forth in article 12 of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, it recognizes “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”.

Accordingly, those engaged in the struggle for human rights must always remember that the right to health care must be a fundamental goal, that the right to health is not just one right among many but is at the core of the human rights edifice, that it is the foundation of autonomy as autonomy is the foundation of humanity, and that when we struggle for the rights of the poor, the rights of women, the rights of the minorities and the rights of the oppressed, one must always remember that without the right to health, all other rights become a mere chimera. This is particularly true with the struggle of many in the developing world for the most basic rudiments of a healthy life, if not life itself: clean water, immunizations and AIDS prevention, just to mention a few.

Principle number two is health care and Canadian values. An equitable and universally acceptable, responsive and sustainable publicly funded health system would reflect basic Canadian values, apart from the five principles of the Canada Health Act, including: ensuring access to health services on the basis of health need and not on the basis of the ability to pay; a shared risk approach to the provision of health services, which is necessary to ensure an equitable access to health services; the public governance and accountability of health services; and the whole question of the integration of economic performance and health services.

Principle number three is sustainability, debunking the myths. A network of myths has developed around the Canadian health care system. Despite the popularity of the Canadian health care system among Canadians and the international respect that it enjoys, it is being dismissed by critics as old fashioned, unsustainable, economically unfeasible and otherwise out of step with the new globalization.

In particular, some 10 myths have been propagated and passed as conventional wisdom when the evidence indicates otherwise. These myths include the myth that the aging population will overwhelm the health care system, the myth that Canadian health care spending is out of control, the myth that health care is an ordinary market good, the myth of Canada as socialized medicine, the myth that Canada has the most publicly funded system internationally, the myth of medical savings accounts, the myth of user fees, the myth of strengthening the public system by freeing up resources, the myth of the federal government's limited contributory role, the myth of affordability and requiring more private money, and the myth that a two tiered system is inevitable and desirable.

That brings me to principle number four, toward a strategy of cross commitment, the interplay of health determinates. Simply put, a comprehensive response to an equitable and publicly funded system may require not only the eight national strategic priorities that I cited above but must also address the oft ignored health determinates: the struggle against poverty, discrimination, poor housing, poor working conditions, poor education and a lack of civic literacy in health and the like.

As my colleague, the member for St. Paul's put it, “investing in air quality is preferable to more puffers and respirators”.

Principle number five is the imperative of prevention. It is more cost effective, more value added and just easier to prevent and pre-empt illness than to treat it once it has arisen. Accordingly, there is a clear role for all the stakeholders in the system in promoting wellness, a healthy diet, exercise, lifestyle and preventive medicare checks and the like.

Principle number six is the integrity of the patient. The health care system must treat patients as individuals to be treated with dignity, with concern for the psychological and emotional impact of illness and treatment, not just the physical and medical effects, and an appreciation of the distinction and diversity of the patient population having a regard to culture, gender, religion, the whole and increasingly multicultural society.

Principle number seven is the imperative of aboriginal health care. My colleague, the member for Nanaimo--Alberni, has discussed this so I will simply say that particular care must be given to ensuring that aboriginal populations are properly and sensitively served by the health care system.

Principle number eight is stable and predictable funding. Stakeholders must know years in advance the resources they will have available to ensure proper planning and the delivery of services.

Principle number nine is that we must protect the health system in international trade negotiations. The challenge here is to find a balance between protecting our health system from unfettered international private sector funding and delivery while at the same time enabling public-private Canadian health partnerships to have exposure on the world market.

Principle number ten is respect for all stakeholders. The stakeholders in the health care system are not just those who use its services but also those who provide them. Nurses, doctors and all health professionals have a right to work in a health care system that treats them with respect and attentiveness, that values them in their work and that recognizes the commitments they make.

Principle number eleven is the critical importance of human resource issues. These human resource issues are not the only major cost factors in the health delivery system. For example, 70% to 80% of health organizations' budgets are allocated to staff. However there is a current and projected global shortage of providers and an uneven distribution of people and skills across Canada, not only between regions but within regions. These issues involve not only physicians and nurses, but also social workers, pharmacists, therapists, medical and laboratory technologists and the like. We need to develop a cross-Canada human resource framework and strategy.

Principle number twelve is embracing an appropriate system change. I would like to make reference to the importance of the particular reference that was made in the report of the Canadian Health Care Association in a response to a sustainable and publicly funded health care system in Canada, The Art of the Possible. The report refers to the importance of implementing primary health care reform; of encompassing home, community and long term care; and of strengthening all components of the health care system; in other words, providing more resources and attention to public health programs, emergency medical services, mental health services, palliative care services and the reorganization of pharmacare.

Several provincial governments have released studies on their health care systems. These studies contain several similar recommendations, including, as I mentioned earlier, the importance of wellness and prevention initiatives; improved waiting list management; and the importance of community health centres, such as the CLSs in Quebec which have two principal benefits. They reduce the stress on health care professionals by creating interdisciplinary teams who care for a pool of patients and provide 24 hour clinics where people can get the care they need so that only the most ill patients need to use the more costly emergency rooms.

Finally, as Mr. Romanow put it, “Everything is on the table except the status quo”. What is at stake is defining who we are and what we aspire to be as a people.

[International Law Competition, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House that the final rounds of Le Concours Rousseau International Law Competition are being held this week in Montreal at the Faculty of Law of McGill University.

The Concours Rousseau is an annual event which brings together law students from around the world for a week of creative legal thinking, oral advocacy and social events, all in the spirit of international comradery. After having recently won qualifying rounds in their home countries, the members of 12 teams arrived in Montreal from Argentina, Belgium, Benin, France, Germany, Romania, Switzerland and Togo. Two Canadian law school teams also qualified to compete in the Concours Rousseau.

It is especially fitting that the competition is being held in Canada. The problem the students will be debating this year is a question of law related to the International Criminal Court, the most dramatic development in international humanitarian and criminal law since Nuremberg and a historic milestone toward ending the culture of impunity. Canada has been at the forefront of the international campaign to establish the ICC and to bring the treaty into effect.

I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating all the participants in the Concours Rousseau as we also celebrate the coming into effect of the ICC treaty.

[Committees of the House, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the eighteenth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Sub-committee on Human Rights and International Development held hearings on human rights development and other matters in Colombia and prepared this report as a result of testimony received in Ottawa and Colombia.

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.