Hansard Highlights from Sept. 18, 2006

Bill C-283

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) moved that Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (food labelling), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-283 is a private members' bill requiring an insane amount of business-destroying detail in food labelling. Labelling may be a very good thing - if consumers want it - but I think we should object to mandatory labelling which this would just add to in an extreme way. In a libertarian system, there would be legal enforcement against misrepresentation (fraud).

Bill C-16

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) moved that Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-16 is a government bill which:

amends the Canada Elections Act to provide that, subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament, a general election must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this enactment comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, during his speech, the member referred to party hacks and other backroom people setting election dates.

Would he care to comment on the story in today's press from the Conservative Party hacks and backroom boys that the next election is next spring, right after the budget comes down?

Mr. Tom Lukiwski:

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has again got it completely wrong. It is idle media speculation.

Let me just assure my colleague that the longer we have a chance to stay in power, with the legislation that is being so overwhelmingly approved and appreciated by Canadians, the better we will be. We do not want an election after the next budget. We want an election after four successive budgets. That would ensure that we stay in power for an awfully long time.

The key word being Power. I don't have any opinion on the Bill.

Canadian Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan

Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Superior North, Lib.) acknowledged the death of Anthony Boneca, a Canadian soldier killed in action in Afghanistan on July 9, 2006, who "...made the supreme sacrifice for his country."

And I guess a lot of these M.P.'s want more sacrifice from soldiers. But I don't want them to sacrifice their lives or suffer at all. And especially not in order to kill foreign individuals who did not initiate aggression against any of us, or to support foreign governments, or to stir up new foreign enemies.

If you have evidence against some Afghanis for committing the crime on 9/11, then declare them outlaws and try to arrest them. Other than that, it's just another rotting empire the Canadian government is attempting to shore up.

I would like to withdraw my funding from the Afghanistan mission but I assume the government doesn't allow me to do that. So I withdraw my sanction from it by not keeping silent about it.

British and Russian Experience in Afghanistan

Reason to hope Canadians don't repeat history in Afghanistan Edmonton Journal, July 31 '06

In 1880, British soldiers looked out from their defences at Kandahar across the desolate landscape of southern Afghanistan, a landscape that concealed a multitude of enemies.

A century later, Soviet troops were having the same experience.

Now it is the turn of Canadian troops in Kandahar to confront both the pitiless terrain and a determined enemy hoping to drive them out of Afghanistan.

This is a helpful article because it explains what motivated the British. It leaves out the covert U.S. intervention that occurred pre-Soviet invasion, but that's another story.

However, the title and conclusion of the piece are completely the opposite of the historical pattern of the same interventionist mistakes. Underestimating the resistance. Overestimating the value of what Western society has to offer. Overestimating Western power. Underestimating the value of human life. Worshipping force as a means to achieve desirable ends (even if those are genuine) rather than persuasion and peaceful influences. These are all the same mistakes that people who insist on warfare and empire and interference will always make.

Frankly, centuries of warfare and outside interference has made Afghanistan what it is. Leave them alone and let them try to find peace. Ordinary people in all cultures want peace and benefit economically from peace.

Maybe the government should first fix the Canadian criminal justice system for instance before they even start preaching to the world about anything at all, let alone trying to fix Afghanistan. We should also start negotiations with the U.S. and Europe to end the drug war so as to end the high profits from selling heroin (Afghanistan grows poppies).

Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi-Le Fjord, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois deplores the deaths of four soldiers killed this morning [Sept. 18] in a suicide bombing that hit a NATO patrol in Kandahar province.

This tragedy reminds us yet again of the danger and the difficult conditions to which soldiers and diplomats working to establish peace, social justice and democracy in Afghanistan are exposed. I hope that their sacrifices will not have been in vain...

Let's stop the tragedy and the vain efforts to "establish peace" through violence.

Burma

Mr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges-Markham, Lib.) on Burma:

Mr. Speaker, a number of my constituents, particularly an Amnesty International group in my riding, are concerned about the human rights situation in Myanmar, previously Burma.

Human rights abuses, violence against women, the holding of political prisoners and military rule are only a few of the main concerns.

Just this spring, the opposition leader's house arrest was extended by a year. The military regime is so desperate to hang on to power that it is even now cracking down on stand-up comics who poke fun at it....

Softwood Lumber

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Liberal opposition MPs from Atlantic Canada are playing politics with the softwood lumber agreement by refusing to support the deal.

The agreement reached by our government will result in the return of almost $5 billion to the lumber industry and will finally bring an end to this ongoing dispute.

By far, most of the lumber industry supports the agreement....

War-mongering on Iran

Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to turn the attention of the House to Iran's refusal to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in connection with its nuclear program.

On July 31, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1696 that:

Demands, in this context, that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA.

It gave it one month to do so or face the possibility of economic and diplomatic sanctions. Instead of allaying fears that it seeks to develop nuclear weapons, Tehran responded with sabre-rattling and on August 19 launched extensive military exercises to intimidate the international community.

On September 14, IAEA issued a report stating that Iran had not suspended its enrichment related activities. In accordance with Security Council resolution 1696, the time has come to consider serious economic sanctions to show Tehran that the world will not be intimidated by its intransigence.

Iran was attempting to "intimidate" the international community? I think it's the other way around and it's a minority of the international community that is attempting to intimidate Iran.

See Security Council demands Iran suspend uranium enrichment by 31 August, or face possible economic, diplomatic sanctions

Resolution 1696 (2006) Adopted by Vote of 14 - 1 ( Qatar), Iran Says Peaceful Programme No Threat, Council's Consideration Unwarranted

The Security Council, seriously concerned that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was still unable to provide assurances about Iran's undeclared nuclear material and activities after more than three years, today demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, and gave it one month to do so or face the possibility of economic and diplomatic sanctions to give effect to its decision.

And Iran's point of view is included in this release, and I think it's very interesting:

Iran's representative asserted that its peaceful nuclear programme posed no threat to international peace and security, and, therefore, dealing with the issue in the Security Council was unwarranted and void of any legal basis or practical utility. Far from reflecting the international community's concerns, the sponsors' approach flouted the stated position of the overwhelming majority of Member States. Today's action by the Council, which was the culmination of efforts aimed at making the suspension of uranium enrichment mandatory, violated international law, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and IAEA resolutions. It also ran counter to the views of the majority of United Nations Member States, which the Council was obliged to represent. The sole reason for pushing the Council to take action was that Iran had decided, after over two years of negotiations, to resume the exercise of its inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, by partially reopening its fully safeguarded facilities and ending a voluntary suspension.

Iran's right to enrich uranium was recognized under the NPT, he said. And, upholding the right of State parties to international regimes was as essential as ensuring respect for their obligations. Those regimes, including the NPT, were sustained by a balance between rights and obligations. Threats would not sustain the NPT or other international regimes, but ensuring that members could draw rightful benefits from membership, and that non-members were not rewarded for their intransigence, did. Yet, today, the world was witnessing a dangerous trend. While members of the NPT were denied their rights and punished, those who defied the NPT, particularly the perpetrators of the current carnage in Lebanon and Palestine, were rewarded by generous nuclear cooperation agreements. "This is one awkward way to safeguard the NPT or ensure its universality", he said.

Even though they've been lied about for decades, I'm sure the Iranian government is not full of goodness and light. But I'm also sure they don't want to be attacked. And I think many of us don't want to see thousands or millions of innocent Iranians die in a war that is stirred up by Western governments.

The existing nuclear powers are all hypocrites. They have nuclear weapons - are they obeying the NPT? Are they reducing them? Israel has nuclear weapons and where is the condemnation of Israel? Has Canada not supplied material to produce nuclear weapons?

All this hypocrisy - while the U.S. is constantly threatening Iran. And we just sit helplessly waiting for the war to start - listening to these politicians threaten foreign countries with sanctions and talk about how much Iran wants war when it's obvious that Western nations are gunning for Iran and other countries that threaten to act independently of Western influence.

Global-warming and Kyoto

The government in this exchange defended itself over the Environment and its skepticism towards the Kyoto Global Warming Religion - weakly.

Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member is not aware of the extent of discussions this government is having with the provinces and territories on initiatives that address clean air, clean water, clean land and climate change. In fact, in the last few days the Minister of the Environment has called all of the provincial environmental ministers, including Mr. Béchard in the province of Quebec.

On the specific issue of the Government of Quebec, there have been discussions between the federal government and Quebec on a variety of issues, including climate change. The Minister of the Environment met her Quebec counterpart, Mr. Béchard, several months ago and climate change was the primary topic of discussion. Her office is in regular contact with Mr. Béchard's office. The new deputy minister of the environment met his provincial counterpart on May 29, less than one week after he was appointed, and discussions occur on a regular basis.

We were pleased when the Government of Quebec tabled its climate change plan a few months ago. This gives us a clear idea where the province sees opportunities for emissions reductions and provides us at the federal level with clearly identified areas where we are able to collaborate with it. There are already ways in which we are well aligned with Quebec in our priorities. We look forward to working together for the betterment of Canada's environment and the health of all Canadians.

Several announcements in the current budget will help Quebec in its efforts. These include a tax credit for transit passes, the largest investment in clean public transportation infrastructure in Canada's history, and a commitment to implement an average 5% renewable fuel content by 2010. We are not only talking to Quebec. We are in discussions with all provinces, territories and key stakeholders regarding opportunities for investment in transit infrastructure and the commitment to renewable content in fuels. These are all tangible measures.

Concrete measures which have real results will provide cleaner air for all Canadians and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions too. This is just the start. We will continue to build on these measures and create an environmental agenda focused on ensuring that future generations enjoy clean air, clean water, clean land and clean energy here in Canada, a plan which will reduce air contaminants and greenhouse gases and will improve the health of Canadians.

So genuine pollution issues aside, I think the government has bought in to this "climate change" and "greenhouse gases" nonsense in its own way. It is not doing us any favors by deliberately mixing up the issues of pollution and climate change - which confuses the public.

So its opposition to Kyoto is weak and not based on a real concern about the threats we face to our freedoms - through taxes and regulations - from attempts by governments to control greenhouse gases. It's hard to give the Conservatives credit under these circumstances but I suppose I have to give them a little.

I object to the idea that anyone has a right to force human beings to stop producing greenhouse gases. We are part of nature and have as much right to produce carbon dioxide or methane as some swamp or volcano.

And no government should play God, but that's all they want to do in one way or another. And climate change policies will not work to reduce global warming - this is the most unbelievable thing. To force costs up, to create new taxes and new regulations that override property rights is to interfere even more with our lives and threaten our well-being. And their theory should be questioned as to how much humans are contributing to climate change.

The logical conclusion of policies such as Kyoto is to reduce us to total serfdom. On the one side we have the war-mongers taking our resources and freedoms for their wars, and from the other side (?) we have the climate change dictators ready to pounce on what remains of our property rights and capacity to make independent economic choices. And both sides rely on lying propaganda and bullying one-sided tactics. This is where the "left"-"right" paradigm leads us.

Can you imagine government getting smaller in a global carbon reduction regime? No. How big do you want your government? Well, let's start with:

Global Taxes

Here is one type:

Energy Taxes

...efforts to implement international and regional taxes on hydrocarbon energy fuels that cause global warming. Such taxes would correct market failures by internalizing economic externalities, such as pollution, enabling the price of goods and services to reflect full social and environmental costs.

More background:

Kyoto Protocol: Position of Canada

CBC News InDepth: Climate Change