Maria Minna

[Supply, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition motion of the hon. member talks about a federal contribution of 16% to health care. In my view this is obviously not true. I think the hon. member knew that when he put forward the motion.

With respect to his arguments about the federal and provincial governments, the Government of Canada has made it clear that it is serious about setting a new tone and establishing a new working relationship with the provinces and territories built on respect, consultation and dialogue. This is very important to note. We hope the provincial and territorial governments will reciprocate.

Canadians have clearly told us that they are tired of seeing their governments fighting. As we approach a budget, the ongoing ads, after we recently committed $2 billion, are not in the spirit of what we are talking about here.

Canadians expect their governments to work together, not against one another, to address their pressing such as health care. The Prime Minister has said that he is committed to a new way of doing business. As prime minister designate, he met with premiers in Regina last November. Then as Prime Minister, he met with them again on January 30. At that meeting, all agreed that sustainability of the health care system was a top priority. The Prime Minister has committed to discuss this important issue at another federal-provincial ministers meeting this summer.

It is important that all governments focus on the desired outcome, a sustainable health care system. The meeting this summer will be about that. The Prime Minister has committed to that and we are moving toward that. We have been moving in that direction for some time.

The Government of Canada does not agree with the way the federal share of health care financing has been characterized. I think that is quite clear here today. A more accurate estimate of the current federal share of national public health spending is more than 40%, a share that will grow with the investments made under the 2003 health accord, which was not that long ago and for which $2 billion was recently paid out.

The Government of Canada's support for health care is substantial and growing. Last year the government committed to a five year $34.8 billion funding agreement. The Government of Canada has taken the necessary steps to ensure that an additional $2 billion will be available to the provinces for health care.

Cash transfers to the provinces will grow from $19.1 billion in 2002-03 to $28.1 billion in 2007-08. In fact cash transfers for health care and other social programs will grow at 8% annually on average over the five year period covered by the 2003 accord. This is substantially higher than the expected growth of federal government revenues over the same period.

If we were to look at a summary of increases in federal investments on health for the near future, it would look somewhat like this. The investment by the Government of Canada over the next three years will be $17.3 billion. Over the next four years, it will be $25.3 billion investment. Over the next five years, it will be $34.8 billion. Over the next eight years, the investment will be $70.1 billion.

In addition to that, as part of the 2003 accord, the Government of Canada, with the provinces, recently established a National Health Council to bring more accountability and transparency in the health care system across the country. The health accord took ideas from the Romanow report as well as from three provincial reports. This shows that the government looked at various ideas, and it listened to the provinces.

Hopefully, the National Health Council will also be addressing the reform issues that deal with problems of human resources, technicians, nurses, doctors. These issues also have to do with provincial reform and changes. I can speak of one example in Ontario, for instance, where we have over a thousand doctors with foreign credentials who are not practising, yet we have a shortage of doctors. There are other professionals who are unable to practise. These are provincial issues as well as federal and we must work on these things together. Therefore, accountability will be part and parcel in moving forward.

To continue to speak about the issue of income financing, no one speaks very clearly about the tax points. There is a great deal of myth about the tax points and what they mean. They are real cash. The value of the Canada health and social transfer tax points cannot be ignored since half the cash under the cost sharing regime was converted into tax points in 1977 by mutual consent. The provinces asked that they be given less cash and more space in tax points, which was done in 1977.

Now, of course, they want to forget that because they do not use that money, however they use it, and now increase the cash anyway, which we are doing absolutely. But at the same time we cannot leave out of the equation the whole tax point system and the amount of money that they represent because it is money that nonetheless goes from the government even if it is through tax points and deferred taxation.

The other is equalization payments the provinces received from the federal government. Again, this is not put into the equation very clearly. Equalization payments do not have a clear direction. They do not tell the provinces how to use the money but I would suspect a big chunk of that does go into health care. Again, that is an aspect of the finances that is not dealt with very clearly.

They also are not accounting for other federal contributions to the total public health spending, which is estimated at approximately $5 billion in 2003-04. These areas can include things such as the first nations health, veterans' health, health protection services, disease prevention, health information and health related research.

As well, through the tax system, the federal government provides support worth about $1 billion a year which includes such things as credits for medical expenses, disability, caregivers and infirmed dependants. This is not something that is very light. There are a lot of expenses beyond what is transferred directly to the provinces or in addition to that. Cash transfers to the provinces will grow from $19.1 billion in 2002-03, as I said earlier.

There are other issues. The issue of health care reform is something that was also discussed at the last meeting of the Prime Minister and the provinces and will be discussed again. Health and finance ministers were tasked to meet and to look at issues surrounding the sustainability of the health system leading up to a first ministers meeting this summer. They have been asked to work on these issues.

All agree that sustainability is not just about money but about reforming the system as well, and this is very important to look at. I believe that reform is a fundamental piece of the puzzle in the sustainability of our health care system. The fee for service system we have now, for instance, is too costly and does not provide a holistic approach which includes preventive health care.

In Beaches—East York, I am proud to say that we have a very successful community health care centre where doctors are paid a salary. They are on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, helping to keep people out of our crowded hospital emergency rooms. The centre staff also includes a nurse practitioner and a nutritionist.

This rounded approach to the delivery of primary health care will mean a much healthier society and a more sustainable system in the long term. While delivery of health care falls within provincial jurisdiction, we must work together to ensure that reform takes place in order to guarantee a sustainable healthy public and a universally accessible system.

All agree that sustainability is not just money. It is important to look at all aspects of health care. If we do not do that, we will not be able to address the issues.

First ministers committed in the accord to reforms in the areas of primary health care, home care and catastrophic drug coverage. First ministers also committed to enhancing access to publicly funded diagnostic and medical equipment and to the development of an electronic health accord.

Those are areas that the ministers, when they met with the Prime Minister last time, agreed to work together on and to report next summer as part of the package that was agreed upon to reform the health care system in an overall context.

Let us talk about home care. If we are looking to the future we can clearly see that the demand for home care services will increase and not decrease. Many families will want to care for their loved ones at home to maintain their quality of life and dignity. Addressing these shortages of home care will go a long way to alleviating the stress in hospitals and emergency rooms, as well as the costs associated with long term acute and palliative care.

Equally important, the stress levels and demands experienced by caregivers themselves will soon be approaching critical levels and will create even more stress on the health care system as the existing caregivers grow older or develop health problems of their own. In effect, home care should not be seen as a separate category of care but as a key part of the health care system.

To gain the most from home care services, we need to ensure the natural continuum of care. We need to move ahead with concrete actions for a truly national program. This should include the recognition and appropriate compensation for our home care workers and support and incentives for families who provide the necessary care. This is a whole area of services on which, as we understand it, ministers are supposed to be meeting to discuss in order to prepare for the summit this summer.

First ministers directed health ministers to work on additional reform initiatives in such areas as patient safety, health human resources, technology assessment and innovation and research. These are very critical areas that we must look at.

Finally, the Government of Canada, in addition to spending in the various areas that I have just mentioned, has other programs in the area of public health. As we know, the Prime Minister recently appointed a minister responsible for public health, a position that did not exist before. She has been mandated to establish the Canada public health agency that will address public health risks and coordinate a national response to health crises. She has also been mandated to appoint the chief public health officer for Canada.

Other programs that the Government of Canada funds are tied to the issue of health care as well. Early learning was flagged by the prime minister's health forum of 1994-95 I think, and to the health cost of the future. If a child between the ages of zero to six receives proper nutrition, we will have a healthier child and a healthy child is a well adjusted child. The government and I fought very hard to increase the child tax benefit to ensure that child poverty would be eliminated in our country. We also wanted early learning for children, stimulation and well-adjusted children. This is an area that does go to assisting and bringing down the costs of the health care system, as well as looking at the whole issue of physical activity, which is part of the new public health minister's responsibility.

We have heard on the news lately of the problem of overweight children and society in general, the issue of physical activity and nutrition is very critical. It is part of our responsibility, together with the provinces, to ensure that we have a healthier society in the long term.

Funding for the national crime prevention program that the government funds also goes to the same long term savings in the health care system. Preventive care is very important. We cannot just look at primary care that is needed now and is very important, but also long term care.

The national pharmacare program is something that I understand the ministers will be looking at and discussing this summer when they get together to look at the sustainability of the health care system, the catastrophic cost of drugs and to assist Canadians with the cost of drugs. I believe the Canada Health Act, as such, should cover the cost of drugs, especially catastrophic drug costs.

When we look at all the various commitments and partnerships that exist between the provinces, the territories and the Government of Canada in all areas of public health, such as aboriginal health and all the various funding mechanisms that exist within our country, the picture is not as clear as everybody would like to make it.

We are talking about a very complex area, an area where we must work together to ensure that our system is sustainable. I strongly believe that our primary health care has to be reformed. We need to look at home care because that will free up a lot of space in hospitals and also ensure that people have dignity at times of need in their lives.

The provincial and territorial premiers, as well as the Prime Minister, have been mandated to discuss those things now to get ready for this summer.

The summit was held and two other meetings have been held since then. We have transferred $2 billion. Yes, a budget is coming up but we have not addressed the reform issues which will be addressed this summer. Once that is done I presume we will have an additional accord that will take us the distance in the long term.

However we must address those issues before we start talking and, to some degree, being blackmailed by ads just because there is a budget coming up. Negotiations should not be done in that way. That is not the spirit in which the Prime Minister started his discussions with the premiers.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

--and reminded that this is the wish of the House.

Given the fact that the provinces are part of this, I want to ask my colleague if he has a suggestion as to how, at some point in the future, we might engage the provinces as well, to ensure that the two orders of government that are responsible for the Canada pension plan and for the investment fund reinforce this kind of message.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I agree one hundred per cent with my colleague and I also agree with the motion. It is a very good motion. I must say that I find totally unacceptable the notion that companies which manufacture landmines might be subsidized by our CPP funds. Having seen when I visited Kosovo some of the effects that landmines have had on people and given the fact that we have what was called the Ottawa initiative, Canada's initiative from a former minister of foreign affair, which led the world in eliminating landmines, just using that as an example, it is not acceptable.

To me, investing in green technologies is probably one of the ways to really encourage CPP. When the Canada pension plan people came in front of the finance committee of the House of Commons, they told us that they tried very hard to make sure that they invested ethically. They told us that they try to screen as much as they can. I think it is incumbent on the House to make sure that they are encouraged--

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the throne speech, especially as it clearly recognizes what I have been saying for some time now, that social policy and economic policy are one and the same.

The main focus of the throne speech, strengthening Canada's social foundations, recognizes that investing in things such as universal health care, education, child care, affordable housing, training and skills, and safe communities is good for society and for our economy as well.

For the earlier part of our mandate we focused more on eliminating the national deficit and lowering the debt. We have also cut both individual and corporate taxes. We have restored full indexation of the personal income tax system and reduced personal income tax by an average of 15% annually.

In more recent years we had begun to increase investment in children, skills training, research and innovation, the environment, health care, crime prevention, affordable housing and infrastructure, although in this case we have been investing since 1994, totalling $12 billion. Now we are making a commitment to strengthen our commitment to the social deficit.

I am pleased to see the government's commitment to see that every Canadian has timely access to quality care, regardless of income or geography. As the Prime Minister said, care delayed cannot become care denied.

The government is transferring $2 billion to the provinces as promised, but additional funding alone will not improve health care. I believe that we must follow through, together with the provinces and territories, with health care reform, such as reform of primary care and dealing with home care and long term care.

In my riding of Beaches—East York we have a great example of quality, accessible, timely and sustainable primary care delivery through a community health care centre. The doctors are paid a salary. There are nurse practitioners to help and nutritionists to address healthy living. The doctors are on call 24/7, which keeps most cases from the hospital emergency rooms.

The new Canada public health agency that will ensure Canada is linked both nationally and globally in a network for disease control and emergency response is also welcome. I believe it should deal with public health promotion and preventive care as well.

Also, there is the appointment of a new chief public health officer for Canada, who will undertake a much needed overhaul of federal health protection through a Canada health protection act. This is welcome news.

I was proud to vote in favour of the ratification of the Kyoto accord. I am pleased to see the Government of Canada make a clear commitment to respect its commitment to the Kyoto accord on climate change.

The cleaning up of contaminated sites the government is responsible for by spending $3.5 billion and helping to remediate contaminated sites such as the tar ponds are well overdue. I am glad to see that.

As well the government is committing to clean air and clean water and will work with the provinces to achieve more stringent national guidelines on air and water quality. It will also start incorporating key indicators on clean water, clean air, and emissions reductions into its decision making.

It was important for me to see that the government is making a commitment to safe communities. Our current crime prevention program has benefited many communities across Canada. In Beaches—East York this program is helping address the root causes of crime by contributing $97,744 under the community mobilization program. Neighbourhood Link and East York-East Toronto Family Resources are the agencies delivering the programs.

There is a new deal for our cities that targets the infrastructure needed to support quality of life and sustainable growth, a new deal that delivers reliable, predictable and long term funding. These are statements we have all been working to hear. I know that the residents of my riding and of Toronto are happy to finally hear them.

The government has appointed Mr. Harcourt to help work out long term financial agreements, such as the sharing of a portion of gas revenues or other fiscal mechanisms which achieve the same goals, with the provinces, cities and federal government. The government has made an immediate down payment by providing all municipalities with full relief from the portion of the GST they now pay.

Current investments in infrastructure, urban transit, affordable housing, clean water and good roads will see funds committed.

During the last 10 years I worked very hard toward the eradication of child poverty and to deal with the urgent need of early learning and care for children. The child benefit has been increased to provide $3,240 for the first child in 2007. This means an annual support of over $10 billion by 2007.

In 2000 the government signed a historic accord with the provinces on the early childhood development initiative and committed $2.2 billion to that effect. The Beaches—East York early learning program is receiving $500,000, most of which is coming from the $2.2 billion.

The 2003 budget committed an additional $935 million over the next five years to address quality child care. The government's continued commitment to early learning and care is indeed good news because this will mean more quality child care and better starts for all our children.

Education is fundamental to the quality of life of all our citizens. By this I do not just mean formal education such as college and university, although accessibility to post-secondary education is a must. I am pleased to see that the government is also committing to skills training and working in partnership with union and sector councils.

In Beaches--East York the Government of Canada funds the neighbourhood link employment centre, the Gateway Café which helps youth at risk, the job squad for young people, and summer employment programs. These are programs that I worked hard to bring to the riding and I will continue to ensure their funding.

I am also pleased to see that there is a real commitment to address the shameful way in which we have treated professional immigrants in this country, essentially marginalizing them to low paying jobs. Canada has the most highly skilled and educated taxi drivers and large numbers of doctors are being wasted even while there is a shortage of doctors. We made promises here before and I intend to hold the government's feet to the fire on the commitment in the Speech from the Throne to address the problem of foreign credentials.

Finally, I am pleased that the government has recognized the importance of the characteristic that most reflects who and what we are to ourselves and to the world, and that is our culture. Canada's artists and cultural organizations, including our multicultural arts, make us a distinct society and we must support and nurture it. Public broadcasting is fundamental to maintaining Canada's cultural sovereignty. I will continue to ensure that the government continues to provide sustainable funding.

This, I must say, is the Speech from the Throne that I have been waiting for.

[Canadian Council of the Blind, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today I ask the House to pay tribute to the Canadian Council of the Blind, an organization of the blind and visually impaired which is this year celebrating its 60th year. The council was founded in 1944 by veterans of the second world war who felt the need for a voice for the blind.

Since 1947 the first week of February has been designated as White Cane Week. During this week events take place in communities across the country that are designed to increase the public awareness of the challenges faced by the blind and visually impaired, and to build the understanding that a lack of sight is not a lack of vision.

Today the white cane is a symbol of independence and the courage of the blind and visually impaired Canadians as they strive to function independently.

Blindness is not defined by age but, as our population ages, increasing numbers of our citizens will face the challenge of a deterioration of their sight. The national challenge is to ensure these Canadians can live as independently as possible. The white cane is a sign of independence not dependence, of ability not disability.

[Family Supplement, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to fully support the motion this morning.

The family supplement was brought in to replace the old UI dependency provision and to better target and improve benefits for unemployed parents in low income families.

The EI family supplement provides additional financial support by topping up the basic EI benefit rate. This means that claimants who qualify can receive up to 80% of their insurable earnings instead of the regular 55% level.

Last year's EI monitoring and assessment report found that the family supplement was more effective at targeting benefits to low income families than the old UI approach, but it has also found that the number of EI family supplement recipients is declining.

For example, the report shows that in 2000-01 family supplement claims represented 10.7% of all EI claims. That was down from 11.4% the year earlier.

The average weekly benefit in 2000-01 increased from $254 to $255 but because the number of claimants went down, total payments under the EI family supplement declined by 2.3%, to $157.4 million. No doubt some of this reduction is due to the good economy and the fact that more people are working. However we must continue to ensure that all families living in low income situations can benefit from this important supplement.

For example, when we look at the experience of the national child benefit supplement we see the number of children qualifying as living in low income families, as defined by the Canada child tax benefit, is going up.

Data presented in last year`s national child benefit progress report showed that the number of children receiving the NCB supplement because they live in low income under the Canada child tax benefit criteria actually went up by over 90,000 in 2000-01.

In other words, according the national child benefit supplement criteria, many more children were living in low income circumstances during the same period that fewer families were qualifying for support under the EI family supplement.

This apparent disconnect raises a number of questions.

Is the difference occurring because the qualifying income level for the NCB supplement is indexed but the EI family supplement is not?

Is the EI threshold income level that was set in 1996 too low?

Does it mean that families who need extra help from the EI family supplement no longer qualify?

Or, is the EI family supplement still meeting the needs of those it was designed to meet in 1996?

The EI family supplement is an integral element of the overall EI system. Granted, we must also look at any proposals for change in terms of their impact on the rest of the system.

For example, there is the question of how to index the family supplement. The motion proposes that this be done by linking it to the cost of living, which I believe is a very reasonable solution to ensure that all Canadian families and their children in low income situations can benefit from the temporary support of this important supplement if a member of the family suffers a job loss through no fault of their own.

However I am certain that these questions will be resolved once a bill is presented. This motion represents a first step to seek all parliamentarians' support on this important issue.

The government has a long track record of support for women. Doubling EI parental leave from six months to a year helps a lot of working women. Eighty-eight per cent of parent benefit claims in 2001-02 were women, for example.

EI reform in 1996 introduced provisions that better reflected the changing labour market and recognized that working families and, in particular, women who work part time, contribute enormously to Canadian society and the labour force. Employment growth for women continues to rise. Over 80% of women between 24 and 54 years of age were in the labour force in 2002, and women's unemployment rate has consistently stayed below that of men.

Clearly, claimants with children who work part time, possibly in lower paying jobs, and are eligible for EI may only have limited income, and that is why the family supplement is there. It only make sense that it, like the Canadian child tax benefit, should be indexed to inflation.

Old age security benefits and Canada pension plan benefits are indexed and, thankfully, this helps our seniors. The family supplement should also be indexed.

I thank the member for Ahuntsic for bringing this motion forward and for giving us the opportunity to examine the family supplement to better support working families with children.

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect, I was referring to the fact that the member was calling quorum when he knows full well a good number of the members are in committee and have had to be dragged out of committee to come here because he is unnecessarily calling for quorum. With all due respect, that was not acceptable.

[Supply, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I said very clearly in my speech that, yes, he did kill thousands of his own people. At that time the U.S. said nothing when the UN was busy dealing with it. The U.S. was there normalizing its relations with Iraq because that is what suited it at the time. Not all the world was upset.

Right now I am saying we have to ensure that Saddam Hussein lives up to UN resolution 1441. We do not have to do it by bombing. We can do it through inspections. There is still time. There is no emergency for us to go to war tomorrow. Why do we have to go to war tomorrow? Why can we not give the process the chance it deserves in order--

[Supply, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to suggest that this is anti-American. It has nothing to do with being anti-American. It has to do with dealing specifically with a situation which yes, it has been 12 years and it has taken time, but there are inspectors in Iraq today.

The United States wants to have a U.S. led aggression. Canada was one of the countries that said no. We said that we work through the United Nations. It is important to maintain the integrity and the strength of the UN system, the multilateral system.

Inspectors are in Iraq and until such time as there is a chance to continue to inspect we should give peace a chance.

Why have we not looked at what this might do in the region? We talk about urban warfare door to door. We talk about cutting off power and water. Have we thought about the possibility of hundreds of thousands of refugees, of the possibility of igniting war in the Muslim world in that area? Have we talked about what that would mean in terms of increasing and igniting further al-Qaeda? By the way not only is it probably linked to Saddam Hussein, but I understand it has links to 60 countries. Have we thought about the ramifications of this action before we even try to do it?

It is not as simple as getting up one morning and deciding we will go over there and hit hard and it is over the next day with no casualties and nobody will be killed. There will be civilians in Iraq that will be killed. They will die of dysentery and probably of famine. Many Iraqis will leave that country and will end up in refugee camps. We do not know what the reaction will be in the whole region. We are talking about an extremely sensitive area. Meanwhile North Korea has openly said, “We have nuclear weapons and we do not want you guys to bother us”.

What the member is saying is let us go right now. The member's position is to go unilaterally with the U.S. My position is that we wait, we work and we allow the process to work. We have to allow the peace process to work.

[Supply, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.

In his state of the union address President George Bush said that Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction on whole villages “leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured”.

The president failed to mention that the United States supplied tonnes of VX nerve gas to Iraq in the 1980s--back when Iraq and the U.S. were buddy-buddy. On the very day that the UN confirmed Iraq's use of chemical weapons the U.S. envoy to Iraq, none other than Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, was in Baghdad to normalize diplomatic relations with Iraq, offer support for the war against Iran, and subsidies on preferential trade with Iraq.

In his state of the union address President Bush said:

International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq... If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

He was absolutely right. However, according to Amnesty International, the Philippines, an ally of the U.S. in the war against terrorism, uses techniques of torture such as electro shocks and the use of plastic bags to suffocate detainees. Members of the poor, or marginalized communities, including women and children who are suspected of committing criminal acts are particularly vulnerable.

Will we bomb the Philippines and any other nation that tortures its citizens? While we should be addressing these issues, bombing innocent people and further victimizing them is not the answer.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said the UN would lose all credibility if it did not support an attack on Iraq and that it would go the way of the League of Nations, and become irrelevant and die. I do not believe the U.S. administration wants a restructured and stronger UN as Canada and many other countries do. It has consistently refused to pay its dues and undermines the UN in countless other ways.

The U.S. administration does not believe in taking a multilateral approach to international problems. It refuses to support the International Criminal Court and the ratification of the treaty that would ban landmines that kill and maim thousands of innocent civilians every year.

When I hear the U.S. administration say it would hold the oil fields in trust for the Iraqi people I question what this proposed war is really all about. Would it be so intent on taking control of Iraq if recent reports had not indicated that Iraq has more oil than Saudi Arabia. I do not think so.

In his attempt to persuade the Security Council to authorize an attack on Iraq Secretary of State Colin Powell heaped praise on a British intelligence document which, he said, described in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.

An embarrassed British government admitted last Friday that large parts of the intelligence dossier on Iraq were copied from published academic articles, some of which were several years old, and some of the words were deliberately changed to strengthen the argument for war. That means the secretary of state for the most powerful nation on earth based part of his last ditch argument for an attack on Iraq on plagiarized information based on documents that were more than 12 years old.

Saddam Hussein is a despot and a tyrant. He is that and more, but bombing and killing innocent people is not the answer. I said bombing and killing, not collateral damage as the Pentagon describes it. If America were to attack Iraq real flesh and blood, children, mothers and fathers would be bombed to bits. What happened to the war against al-Qaeda and the war against terrorism? We were going to root them out of all of their cells. We knew this would be a long and arduous task. Perhaps it is easier and more high profile to attack Iraq.

Senator Edward Kennedy recently said that America cannot expect the international community to salute the American flag and march with it to war when the administration has failed to make a convincing case for doing so. The Democrats and the majority of the American people do not support an attack on Iraq. Many Americans agree with Senator Kennedy that the terrorist threat posed by al-Qaeda and North Korea's nuclear capability require more immediate attention than Iraq.

We know George Bush wants to get rid of Saddam, but there must be a way to deal with that without killing innocent people. If regime change is what the Americans want, I am sure they know how to go about that without killing innocent civilians. War, with or without the UN, is not the best answer.

Even if the UN eventually does say yes to war, that would be because it is being bent and twisted to accommodate the demands of the U.S. administration. There are other voices offering better solutions and those voices must be heard. We should be focusing our attention on bringing about peace in the Middle East, not aggravating the hostilities in that region, as I believe an attack on Iraq would do.

In closing, I want to speak on behalf of families in Iraq who could be bombed to bits by U.S. warplanes before the end of this month. They bear no responsibility whatsoever for whether the government of Iraq is or is not complying with UN resolution 1441. They have no say whatsoever on what their government does or does not do on the world stage or in the immediate region. All their energies are focused on surviving as best they can in a land devastated by non-stop wars and the life-crippling sanctions that have been imposed on their country.

I have neither seen nor heard anything over the last few months of debate that would justify taking the life of a single Iraqi citizen. I can see no basis on which the House, the Government of Canada, the United Nations Security Council, or the United States and its allies can justify burying entire families beneath the debris of bombed apartment buildings.

I urge all members of the House to keep their mind's eye on the families in Iraq. Let us think of a young girl playing on the dusty street outside a rundown apartment building. Let us think of her growing up, getting married and having children, sons and daughters. Then let us think of her young life being snuffed out before the end of this month by a bomb dropped from an American warplane. Let us think of that young girl. She deserves to live. Do not let her die.